Bnnk xW'33 LJ T 



/ 



AN ANSWER 

TO THE 

Crrata of tfre Protestant Stole, 

fyc. fyc, fyc. 



1 



AN 



ANSWER 



TO 



artn's Strata of tfjc Protestant MMt, 



TO WHICH IS ADDED, 



AN APPENDIX, 



CONTAINING A 



REVIEW OF THE PREFACE TO THE FOURTH EDITION OF THE ERRATA, 



BY THE 

REVEREND RICHARD GRIER, A. M. 

u 

MASTER OF MIDLETON SCHOOL. 



ILonHon; ^ 

Printed by G. Sidney, Northumberland-Street; 

PUBLISHED BY T. CADELL AND W. DAVIES, IN THE STRAND 3 

W. 8. WATSON, DUBLIN ; AND EDWARDS AND SAVAGE, CORK , 



1812, 



r~> 
<r 

TO THE 

RIGHT REVEREND 

WILLIAM, LORD BISHOP OF CLOYNE, 

■ 

My Lord, 

When I first submitted the outline of this 
Synopsis of controverted texts to your Lordship's inspec- 
tion, I had scarcely ventured to form the resolution of expos- 
ing it to the public eye. The favourable judgment^ how- 
ever, pronounced upon it by your Lordship ; and the encou- 
ragement conveyed in your Lordship's opinion, that " it 
would be useful to the Protestant Church," if I exhibited, 
at the same time, " the weakness and the injustice of the 



vi DEDICATION. 

attack made by Ward on the received English Translation 
of the Bible decided me on exerting my best industry for 
the attainment of so desirable an end. 

Of the industry which was thus excited, 
these pages are the result. In them you will perceive, My 
Lord, that, in compliance with your wish, I have included 
those texts, which are set down as corrected in Ward's 
treatise, and made them the subject of distinct enquiry ; for, 
otherwise, as is most justly observed in your Lordship's 
letter, " the cunning would contend, and the ignorant sus- 
pect, that the strongest objections were among those which 
did not appear." 

When the occasion and the nature of the 
subject are considered, I shall not, I hope, appear inex- 
cusable, or seem to act in violation of private communica- 
tion, in making a public use of your Lordship's letter. For, 
if I feel an honest pride, in sanctioning my procedure by 
such high authority ; I am no less gratified in recording, 



DEDICATION. vii 

than the Protestant Clergy must be in receiving, an opinion 
on so important a subject, from a Prelate of your Lordship's 
acknowledged talents, extensive learning, and well-known 
attachment to the interests of the Established Religion. 

With a grateful sense of the credit derived 
from the permission to prefix your Lordship's name to the 
following Work, and with the sincerest wish for your Lord- 
ship's health and happiness, 

I have the honour to subscribe myself, 

- 

My Lord, 

with dutiful respect, 

your Lordship's most obedient, 

and faithful humble Servant, 
RICHARD GRIER. 

Midleton, January 1st, 1812. 



SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 



A. 

Abbot, Joshua, Esq. Cork. 

Abbot, Charles, Esq. Dublin. 

Adams, Rev. Charles R. Dungourney. 

AdamSj Rev. Samuel H. Creg. 

Adair, Rev. Doctor, Fermoy. — 2 copies. 

Allman, William, Esq. M. D. Dublin. 

Armstrong, Rev. George, Bantry. 

Armstrong, Rev. William C. Sligo. 

Ashe, Rev. Doctor, Bristol. 

Atterbury, Rev. Doctor, Rector of Lisgoold. 

Austin, Rev. Doctor, Rector of Midleton. 

B. 

Baillie, Rev. C. Archdeacon of Cleveland. 
Ball, Bent, Esq. Rocksboro' House. 
Baldwin, Henry, Esq. Bandon. — 2 copies. 
Beaufort, Rev. G. L. Rector of Brinny. 
Bell, Rev. Robert, Youghall. 
Beilby, William, Esq. Dublin. 
Berkeley, Rev. Joshua, Cork. 
Bermingham, G. Esq, Trinity College, Dublin. 
Boland, T. Esq. Trinity College, Cambridge. 
Boston, John, Trinity College, Dublin. 
Brinkley, Rev. John, Archdeacon of Clogher. 
Brooke, T. Esq. Castle Grove, L— Kenny. 
Bury, Rev. Robert, Cork. 
Burrowes, Rev. Doctor, Enniskillen. 
Bushe, Charles Kendal, Esq. Solicitor-General 
of Ireland. 



C. 

Cashel, His Grace the Archbishop of — 5 copies. 
Cloyne, Right Rev. Lord Bishop of — 5 do. 
Cork and Ross, the Hon. and Right Rev. Lord 

Bishop of — 3 copies. 
Chichester, Right Rev. Lord Bishop of 
Carbery, Right Hon. Lord 
Clancarty, Right Hon. Earl of 
Chatterton, Sir William A. Bart. Cork. 
Carson, Rev. Thomas, Rector of Shanagarry. 
Carrol, Thomas, Esq. Cork. 
Carey, Rev. Richard, Clonmel. 
Carpendale, Rev. Thomas, Armagh. 
Caulfield, Rev. Hans, Kilkenny. 
Chester, Rev. John, Rector of Castlemagnor. 
Chetwood, Rev. J. Rector of Glanmire. 
Cleghorn, James, Esq. M. D. Dublin. 
Coleman, Rev. Charles, Armagh. 
Coghlan, Rev. Doctor, Annemount. 
Collis, Rev. Z. C. Archdeacon of Cloyne. 
Cotter, Rev. G. S. Rector of Ightermurragh. 
Cotter, Rev. James L. Castlemartyr. 
Cooke, Edward, Esq. Trinity College, Dublin. 
Crowley, Rev. Matthew, Dublin. 
Craig, Rev. Robert, Blackrock, Dublin. 
Cradock, Rev. Thomas, for Marsh's Library, 

Dublin. 

Creaghe, Rev. John, Doneraile. 
Cummins, Marshal, Esq. Cork- 



X 



LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 



D. 

Durham, Hon. and Right Rev. Lord Bishop of — 
5 copies. 

Davenport, Rev. Doctor, F. T. C. D. 
Disnev, Rev. Robert, Rector of Mitchelstown. 
Dowling, Rev. Dionysius, Blackrock, Dublin. 
Downing, Rev. Samuel, Kilkenny. 

E. 

Ely, Right Rev. Lord Bishop of— 2 copies. 
Eames, Rev. William, Dublin. 
Edgar, Rev. John, Tallagh. 
Edwards, Rev. A. Cork. 

Elrington, Rev.Dr.Provost of T. C. D. — 2 copies. 

Elsley, Rev. H. Ripon. 

Evanson, Rev. William A. Cork. 

Ewing, Rev. John, Castlewray, L — Kenny. 

F. 

Fitzgerald, Robert U. Esq. Lisquinlan. 
Forsayth, Rev. John, Cork. 
Foster, Rev. George, Cashel. 
Freeman, Rev. Richard D. Castlecor. 

G. 

Gaggin, Rev. Richard, Mallow. 
Garde, John, Esq. Ballinacurra. 
Garde, Henry, Esq. M. D. Castlemartyr. 
Gavan, Rev. John, Clontarf. 
Gibbings, Rev. Thomas, Limerick. 
Goold, Thomas, Esq. Dublin. 
Gouldsbury, Rev. J. Rector of Boyle. 
Graves, Rev. Doctor, S. F. T. C. D. 
Gray, Rev. Rowland, Cork. 
Greene, Rev. Doctor, Vicar of Tullelease. 
Groves, Rev. Edward, Belfast. 
Gwynne, Rev. William, Castlenock. 

H. 

Hales, Rev. Doctor, Rector of Killesandra. 
Hamilton, Rev. Sackville R» Castlecor. 



Hamilton, Rev. Thomas, Midleton. 

Hamilton, Rev. Hans, Kilkenny. 

Hamilton, Rev. James, Buttevant. 

Hamilton, Rev. George, Kilkenny. 

Harding, Robert, Esq. ditto. 

Hayden, Rev. Thomas, Vicar of Rathcoole. 

Hewitt, Rev. Francis, Newmarket. 

Hincks, Edward, Esq. A. B. Trinity College. 

Hingston, Rev. Dr. Vicar General of Cloyne. 

Kingston, Rev. James, Ahada. 

Hingston, Rev. W. H. Cloyne. 

Hicke} r , Rev. Doctor, Bandon. 

Hobson, Rev. Richard J. Dublin. 

Hutton, Rev. Joseph, do. 

Hyde, John, Esq. Castle Hyde. 

Hyde, Rev. Arthur, Rector of Killarney. 

I. and J. 

Jebb, Rev. John, Cashel. 

Johnson, Rev. Henry, Dublin. 

Jones, Thomas, Esq. Rathfarnham. — 3 copies. 

Irwin, Rev. Henry, Cork. 

Irwin, Rev. James, Raphoe. 

Irwin, Rev. John, ditto. 

K. 

Kildare, the Hon. and Right Rev. Lord Bishop 

of — 5 copies. 
Killaloe, the Hon. and Right Rev. Lord Bishop 

of — 3 copies. 
Kavanagh, Thomas, Esq. Dublin. 
Kennedy, John P. Esq. ditto. 
Kenny, Rev. Doctor, Vicar-General of Cork. 
Kenny, Rev. Thomas, Rector of Donoughmore* 
Kenny, Rev. E. H. Cork. 
Ker, Rev. James A. Kilkenny. 
King, Right Hon. Henry, M. P. 
King, Rev. John, Archdeacon of Killala. 
King, Henry, Esq. Trinity College, Dublin. 
Kingsbury, Rev. Thomas, Vicar of Kilberry. 
Kipling, Rev. Doctor, Dean of Peterborough. 



LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES, 



xi 



Kirchoffer, Rev.. Robert, Rector of Clondroid. 
Knox, Rev. Arthur, Bray. 

L. 

Limerick, Right Rev. Lord Bishop of 

La Touche, James Digges, Esq. Dublin. 

Lane, Rev. James, do. 

Lane, Abraham, Esq. Cork. 

Lane, Abraham, jun. Trinity College, Dublin, 

Lee, Rev. Giles, Cork. 

Lee, Rev. P. Fermoy. 

Le Mesurier, Rev. Thos. N. Longville, Bucks. 
Leney, Rev. Alexander, Blackrock, Dublin. 
Litton, Samuel, Esq. M. D. do. 
Lloyd, Rev. Doctor, F. T. C. D. 
Lord, Rev. John, Mitchelstovvn. 
Lovett, Rev. Doctor, Lismore. 
Lombard, Rev. John, Mallow. 
Longfield, Rev. Robert, Castlemary. 

M. 

Madder, Rev. George, Chancellor of Cashel. 

Magee, Rev. Doctor, S. F. T. C D. 

Magee, John, Esq. Trinity College, Dublin. 

Mahon, Rev. Edward, Elphin. 

Mansfield, Francis, Esq. Castlewray, L — Kenny. 

Mathias, Rev. B. W. Dublin. 

Maturin, Rev. Charles R. do. 

Maunsell, Rev. Thomas, Kilkenny. 

Maunsell, Rev. William, Millstrecr. 

M 'Clean, Rev. Alexander, Rathfarnham. 

M'Clintock, W. Esq. Green Lodge, Strabane. 

M'Cormick, Rev. John, Doneraile. 

M'Cabe, James, Esq. M. D. Dublin. 

M'Minn, Thomas, Esq. ditto. 

Meade, Rev.. Richard, Kinsale. 

Meredith, Rev. Thomas, F. T. C. D. 

Miller, Rev. Dr. late Fellow of T. C. Dublin. 

Mockler, Rev. James P. Fermoy. 



Mooney, Rev. Doctor, F. T. C. D. 
Morgan, Rev. Moore, Dublin. 
Murray, Rev. H. do. 
Musgrave, Sir Richard, Bart. do. 
Musgrave, John, Esq. C. C. Cambridge. 

N. 

Nash, Rev. Doctor, F. T. C. D. 

Neligan, Rev. James, Ballina. 

Newenham, Worth H. Esq. Midleton Lodge. 

Nevvenham, Rev. Thomas, Coolmore. 

Newman, Rev. Horace T. Cork. 

Nevins, Rev. James, Dublin. 

Nixon, Rev. Brinsly, Rector of Ardagh. 

O. 

Ossory, Right Rev. Lord Bishop of — 5 copies. 
Oxford, Right Rev. Lord Bishop of — 2 ditto, 
O'Connor, Rev. Doctor, Castlenock. 
O'Donnoghue, Rev. H. C. Bristol. 
O'Gradj-, S. Esq. 7th Light Dragoons. 
O'Neil, William, Esq. Kilkenny. 
Oldfield, Rev. John O. Lurgan. 
Onslow, Rev. Doctor, Dean of Worcester. 
Ormston, John, Esq. Dublin. 
Orpen, Rev. John, Cork. 

P. 

Perceval, Right Hon. Spencer, Chancellor of the 

Exchequer. — 5 copies. 
Plumptre, Rev. Dr. Dean of Gloucester. 
Plunket, Right Hon. W. Cunningham. 
Pole, Right Hon. W. Wellesley,— 5 copies. 
Pack, Rev. Doctor, Kilkenny. 
Parkinson, Rev. Dr. Kegworth, Leicestershire. 
Pennefather, J. Esq. 

Poole, Thomas, Esq. Sovereign of Midleton. 
Poole, Rev. Jonas, Glanmire. 
Power, Pierce H. Esq. Ring. 
Pratt, Rev. James, Cork. 
Pratt, Rev. Robert, Midleton. 
Purcell, Rev. Matthew, Charleville* 
2 



LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS' NAMES. 



Taylor, Thomas, Esq. M. D. Dublin. 

Thompson, Rev. William, Archdeacon of Cork. 

Thorpe, Rev. Doctor, Dublin. 

Townsend, Rev. Horace, Clonaghkilty. 

Townsend, Rev. John, ditto. 

Townsend, Rev. Joseph, Kilkenny. 

Townsend, Rev. Philip, Cork. 

Tuckey, Rev. Dr. Treasurer of Lismore. 

Tuckey, Rev. Brodrick, Mallow. 

Twiss, Rev. Richard, Drogheda. 



U. and V. 

Ussher, Rev. Doctor J. Derry. 
Ussher, Rev. Doctor, F. T. C. 
Vcsey, Rev. Doctor, Dublin. 
Vigors, Rev. Doctor, ditto. 



D. 



Q. 

Quaile, Rev. Doctor, Trinity College, Dublin. 
Quarry, Rev. J. Rector of Upper Shandon, Cork. 

R. [3 copies, 

llaphoe, Hon. and Right Rev. Lord Bishop of— 
Redesdale, Right Hon. Lord— 2 copies. 
Ridge, Rev. T. Kildare. 
Roberts, Rev. Samuel T. Kilkenny. 
Roe, Rev. Peter, ditto. 
Rogers, Rev. Doctor, Killeigh. 
Russell, Rev. Joseph, Fermoy. 
Ryan, David, Esq. Kilkenny. 
Ryder, Rev. Joshua B. Castlelyons. 

S. 

Salisbury, Right Rev. Lord Bishop of 
Shannon, Right Hon. Earl of 
St. Asaph, Right Rev. Lord Bishop of 
Sadleir, Rev. Francis, F. T. C. D. 
Sandes, Rev. S. Creaghe, F. T. C. D. 
Sandiford, Rev. James, Rector of Magourney. 
Scott, Rev. John, Dean of Lismore. 
Scott, Robert, Esq. Castlegrove, L— Kenny. 
Seton, Anketelle, Esq. Dublin. 
Shanahan, Michael, Esq. T. C. D. 
Shaw, Robert, Esq. M. P. 
Shaw, Rev. Robert, Kilkenny. 
Shields, Rev. Doctor, Drogheda. 

Simkins, Rev. A. Mann, Cove. 

Singer, J. H. Esq. F. T. C. D. 

Smith, Rev. George, Redtor of Castlemartyr. 

Spread, Rev. Edward, Rector of Ahern. 

Stannistreet, Rev. Thomas, Cove. 

Stannistreet, Henry, Esq. Lismore. 

Stewart, Rev. Doctor, Clonaghkilty. 

Stopford, Rev. Dr. late Fellow of T. C. Dublin. Wigmore, Thomas, Esq. Midleton. 

Sullivan, Rev. Francis C. Bandon. Willis, J. Esq. M. D. Cork. 

Swayne, Rev. J. Uniacke, Youghall. Wilson, Rev. James, Dublin. 

Swayne, Rev. John, Midleton. , Woodward, Rev. Doctor, Rector of Glanworth, 

Swete, Rev. Benjamin, Cork. Wrixon, Rev. N. Rector of Mallow. 

Swete, Rev. John, Bristol, Wynne, Rev. Henry, Dublin. 



W. 

Waterford, Right Rev. Lord Bishop of 
Winchester, Hon. and Right Rev. Lord Bishop 

of — 5 copies. 
Waddilove, Rev. Dr. Dean of Ripon. 
Ditto, for the Library of the College Church, 

Ripon. 

Wakeham, Rev. Thomas, Youghall. 

Wall, Rev. C. William, F. T. C. D. 

Wall, Rev. G. Archdeacon of Emly. 

Walker, Rev. Chamberlaine, Dublin. 

Walker, Rev. T. Cork. 

Warren, Rev. Edward, Cork. 

Weekes, Captain, Kerry Militia. 

Welland, William, Esq. Trinity College, Dublin. 

Whitty, Rev. Irwine, Cashel. 



PREFACE. 



A declaration, made by *one of the leading and most active members of the Romish 
Hierarchy, to a f Clergy man of the Established Church, first suggested the absolute neces- 
sity of exhibiting a comparative view of the ^received Versions of the Protestant and 
Popish Bibles, with the original; so as to shew, that there exists the clearest evidence 
of the accuracy of the former, and that the charges brought against it by Thomas Ward, 
are, in the highest degree, illiberal, unfounded, and absurd. On the authority of this 
libeller, it was, that the Right Rev. Gentleman alluded to has, with unmeasured severity, 
censured the Protestant Bible as an §imperfect translation of the divine word ; while he 
bestowed unqualified praise on Ward's Errata, and exulted in the circumstance of its 
having already gone through ||four editions. Such being the language of that gentleman, 

* The Right Reverend Doctor Coppinger. From the very distinguished part which he has 
lately taken in public discussion ; first, in dedicating the expose of his ' unbigoted creed' to the Dublin Society, 
and afterwards in re-publishing it with notes critical and explanatory, it may be inferred, that he solicits, rather 
than declines, publicity. He has in consequence relieved the Author from the disagreeable dilemma in which he 
stood, as to the manner in which he should introduce his name to public notice ; for, having once determined to 
enter on this controversy, he had no alternative left, but to sacrifice every feeling of personal consideration, 
f The Rev. Doctor Green, Curate of Midleton, and Vicar of Tullilease. 

X In the Appendix, the reader will perceive, that the readings of the more ancient English Versions have 
not been unattended to, particularly such as did not come under review in the body of the work. 

§ Such language was mildness itself compared with that used by him to Thomas Poole, Esq. Sovereign of 
Midleton, in a conversation on the subject of his opposition to the establishment of a charitable school in 
that town. On that occasion, Doctor Coppinger did not content himself with pronouncing upon the Protestant 
Translation of the Bible, as imperfect; or as abounding with errors ; or as containing passages adverse or hostile 
"to the Rhemish Version, as he has done in his late production ; but without ceremcyny, thought proper to stigma- 
tize it as altogether " SPURIOUS." See Observations by the Rev. H. Townsend, on Doctor Coppinger's 
letter to the Dublin Society. P. 60. 

|| In the Advertisement to the first edition of the Errata, the Editor boasts, that " so great has been his 
encouragement, that he had then obtained a sale for more than 2000 copies." If the remaining three editions 
which it has gone through be set down at 1000 copies each, the aggregate number of this precious work, which has 
got into circulation, amounts to no less than 5000 ! M With this fact before their eyes, shall the Protestant 
Clergy, but particularly those of Ireland, sit silent spectators, and indifferent lookers on, without uttering a 
murmur of disapprobation, or using a single effort to counteract the effects of the poisonous venom diffused 
throughout their country in the pages of that publication ? 



xiv 



PREFACE. 



whose influence over the Popish community in Ireland is acknowledged to be most 
commanding and extensive, it cannot be thought to attach too much importance to it, 
if it be made the subject of critical remark. 

It is difficult to imagine how *Doctor Milner will reconcile what he has advanced as 
the apologist of the Popish Bishops, with a declaration at once so open and explicit, 
since in his letter to Doctor Elrington, he says, f " I also demonstrate the egregious 
mistake you are under in supposing my episcopal brethren encouragers of the obnoxious 
work." The words themselves betray a something not very creditable to his candour ; 
for, it is morally impossible, that a person acting like him, as the confidential agent of 
his ' Episcopal Brethren,' and, also, who has entered so deeply into their views, but more 
particularly, into those of his ' valuable' friend at Midleton, could have been ignorant, 
that they secretly encouraged the re-publication of that scandalous performance, although 
their names did not appear in the list of Subscribers. Be this as it may, he can ofFer no 
palliation for the unfairness with which he is chargeable in ascribing to Doctor Elrington 
a supposition, which he never made. 

But now conjecture gives way to certainty : for, however strong the grounds of 
suspicion have hitherto been, however conclusive the evidence which before presented 
itself, that the Errata, if not tacitly approved by the Popish Bishops, would not have 
been so extensively patronised by their clergy ; still, as their own admission was wanting 
to establish the fact, the matter must have remained in considerable doubt. It, there- 
fore, will not be going too far to say, that Doctor Coppinger's avowal clears it all away, 
and that from his opinion may be inferred the collective sense of the body to which he 
belongs. He has spoken out on the occasion, with a frankness, for which he is entitled 
to the highest credit, and has identified himself with Ward both in principles and in 
language ; and not himself alone, but the X Popish Clergy throughout the Empire. This 

* It is scarcely necessary to inform the reader, that the Doctor Milner spoken of here, is no other than the 
famous Bishop of Castabala, Author of the Inquiry, &c. &c. &c. and who has raised himself into eminent 
notoriety, not more by his equivocations on the Veto, than by his direct falsification of the authorities from 
which he draws his quotations. 

f For the passage itself, see Inquiry, sec. ed. p. 355. In his remarks on it, Doctor Elrington, after 
observing that what he had written, afforded no plea for charging him with making any supposition about the 
matter ; concludes, " I must, therefore, denominate it (the assertion of Doctor Milner) a very unfounded one, and 
written in the spirit of unfairness as well as of divination." Remarks on Doctor Milner's Tour in Ireland, p. 35* 

X For the truth of this, there is on record the express declaration of Doctor Coppinger himself. " What 
I say for myself, (he here means the exposition he has given of his unbigoted creed, his opinion of Mr. Thomas 
Ward's great merits, and of the Protestant Translation of the Bible being c spurious.') I say without fear of 
contradiction, for every Prelate in the Empire ; for every Prelate in the Catholic World ; or in Mr. Townsend's 
own quotation — ex um disce omnes." See R. R. Doctor Coppinger's Letter to the Dub. Soc. Second Edition, 
p. 6, The Clergy under his jurisdiction echo the same sentiments. Ibid, p. 90. 



PREFACE. 



XV 



adoption, however, of Ward's sentiments, will not, as it should not, subject them to 
the slightest inconvenience, either in person or in property. Enjoying the sweets of 
religious liberty, they will not be constrained, as he was, to fly to a foreign country, to 
evade the laws of their own : — a circumstance, which, while it reflects the highest credit 
on the mild spirit of the present times, strikingly marks their ingratitude, in bearding 
the Protestant Clergy with the foul imputation of obstinate and habitual *hypocrisy ; of 
their Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, being without f consecration, ordination, mission, &c. 
and in charging the Protestant Laity, with the heinous sins of schism and sacrilege. 
This contrast will appear still stronger, when it is considered, what fate would attend 
that author in a Popish country, during the reign of the Inquisition, who dared to 
question, not the spiritual, but even the temporal supremacy of the Pope. 

J" Argument," observed that distinguished literary character, the late Primate 
Newcome, " is the only weapon that should be wielded to defend Christianity, or any 
mode of professing it." Discussion carried on with candour and impartiality, is, indeed, 
the only means which Protestants have ever desired to use in support of their religious 
tenets ; and if their adversaries have, on their part, recourse to virulence and invective, 
to falsehood and calumny, they but thereby defeat their own cause. In the spirit, then, 
of sincerity and truth, it is designed to conduct the present controversy ; and if any 
expression be used, in the course of it, which may wound the feelings of those who 
have different views from the author, it arises from the nature of the subject treated of, 
as he disclaims the remotest idea of giving any offence whatever. As by the advocacy 
of Ward's Errata, the Popish Bishops, and their subordinate clergy, have declared to the 
world, that its language, and its sentiments, are identically their own, and, consequently, 
that they consider themselves parties in the dispute ; they cannot expect to be treated 
more indulgently, than the abettors of antiquated prejudice, and of charges grounded on 

* The Rev. Dr. Kipling, Dean of Peterborough, has, in his neat and satisfactory pamphlet, rescued the 
^rotestant Clergy of the Empire from this odious charge. He has exhibited, in the clearest manner, its folly, 
its falsehood, and its uncharitableness ; and besides, has put an end to the much-agitated question respecting the 
primacy of St. Peter, by the production of the most unequivocal testimonies to prove, that he never exercised the 
episcopal office at Rome. His little work, which manifests very great research, and comprises a fast deal of 
important matter, cannot be too highly spoken of. See certain accusations brought by Irish Papists, &c. 
examined. 

f The Rev. Dr. Ellington's pamphlet, in answer to Ward's Controversy of Ordination, is creditable 
both to the learning and to the abilities of the author. He has, by a closeness of reasoning and strength of argu.- 
ment, demonstrated, that Ward's essay, on that particular subject, is a most wicked libel ; and that the Nag's head 
story is a most infamous fabrication. In consequence of the decided part Doctor E. has taken in this controversy,, 
he has been raised to the highest rank in the University of Dublin. 

X See his attempt towards an improved Version of the Minor Prophets. 



XVI 



PREFACE. 



ignorance and falsehood, deserve. The reader, therefore, must bear in mind, that when- 
ever Ward's name is introduced in the sequel, it is intended to reach beyond the indivi- 
dual ; and that the quotations from his treatise are to be considered as the language of 
its Subscribers, and of the Popish Clergy at large. 

Since, therefore, the author deems himself justified in noticing Ward's book in a 
formal way, he will put in no plea, nor offer the slightest apology, for detecting and 
exposing, in the most pointed manner, the false reasoning, and uncandid misrepresen- 
tation, by which it is characterised, under an apprehension that what he says may be 
irritating to the votaries of Popery, or unpalatable to the fastidious taste of modern 
liberalists. In either case, he has only to repeat, what (lie has already explicitly declared, 
that in undertaking the present vindication, he has been actuated by no feeling of hosti- 
lity towards the calumniators whose principles he arraigns ; and that, if they be displeased 
at the part which he has taken, it cannot be a concern of his, as they, and not he, 
*began the controversy. The wisdom of reviving ancient heats, long buried in oblivion, 
and of publishing the most malignant productions against the Established Clergy, can 
only be known to the secret Consistory of Maynooth, and the Hierarchy of " invisible 
conscience." To common understandings, most unquestionably, the motives for pur- 
suing this line of conduct are not discernible. To be scurrilous, and yet supplicant, to 
talk of conciliation, and, in the same breath, to tell those to be conciliated, that " they 
are not Christians," betrays so marked a contradiction, every thing so foreign from the 
ordinary course of human proceedings, that it cannot be reconciled to the common prin- 
ciples of reason. It is a question, whether it would not defy the sophistical ingenuity of 
Loyola himself, to make it bear even a seeming consistency. 

The work, against which the present investigation is directed, is professedly an 
extract of Gregory Martin's f book, and cannot claim even the subordinate merit of being 
made either with accuracy or judgment. In his Preface, ^Ward speaks of " abridging 
his author (viz. G. Martin) into as short and compendious a method as possible ; as his 
desire is to be beneficial to all, in accommodating it, not only to the purse of the poorest, 
but to the capacity of the most ignorant." Thus it turns out, that this mighty and 

* Dr. Milner confidently asserts, " that in every remarkable controversy between Catholics and Protestants, 
which has taken place in England or Ireland, during the last thirty years, the latter have been the aggressors, the 
former the defendants !" See Instructions addressed to the Catholics of the midland counties, &c. page 24. 
When Doctor Milner can speak thus, he must entertain a strange opinion of the intelligence of his readers, if he 
expects to be believed in what directly outrages their uniform experience. Let him answer one simple question, 
Have Protestants been the aggressors in the controversy excited by the re-publication of Ward's works ? 

f Discoverie of the corruptions of Scripture, Rheims, A. D. 1582. | Errata, page 21. 



PREFACE. 



xvii 



pompous work of Errata is nothing more than a compendium of Martin's prior wort. 
It is a performance sui generis, replete with coarse invective and vulgar abuse, the 
natural effusions of bigoted malice; and were it not for the high degree of credit 
attached to it by the Popish Clergy in Ireland, would deserve to be consigned, with its 
author, to contempt and oblivion, rather than be raised into notice by receiving a regular 
answer. Although the author heaps the most opprobrious epithets on the English Pro- 
testant Translators of the Bible, and accuses them of blasphemy, heresy, most damnable 
corruptions, vile imposture, intolerable deceit, &c. he yet entreats * " his dear reader, not 
to look upon such expressions as the dictates of passion, but rather as the just resent- 
ments of a zealous mind, &c." Whatever such expressions may evince as to the zeal, 
they can leave no doubt as to the spirit in which the author has composed his work ; and 
when the f Editor boasts of the unprecedented sale it has obtained, on re- publication^ 
through " the indefatigable zeal" of his friends, there is equally strong evidence, that the 
spirit of those friends, whom the public cannot now mistake, is perfectly congenial with 
his own. 

The leading articles in the Errata were answered at least a century before the 
appearance of this wretched performance, at the time when they were first given to the 
public. Doctor W. Fulke, in his ^treatise, completely refuted Martin's charges one after 
the other, and was equally successful in silencing the Annotators of the Rhemish New 
Testament. Cartwright, too, a man of no ordinary stamp, employed his talents in the 
same cause. Since their time, other Divines, still more distinguished for their learning 
and abilities, and not tinctured, as they were, with puritanism, but admirers of Chris- 
tianity in its primitive excellence, have, at different periods, by their elucidations of the 
Scripture, armed the scholar with incontrovertible arguments against the cavils of 
Popery in every shape in which they have appeared. So that, in the present line of con- 
troversy, it would be nothing short of vanity to lay any claim to originality; as diligent 
research will lead but to this conclusion, that nothing can be said, which has not been 
anticipated ; nor any new argument offered which has not been already used. However, 
the re-production of those arguments, divested of the quaint and stiff form which many 
of them possess, when placed in a new point of view, and suited to the varying fashion 
of the times, must be attended with beneficial consequences. By the author, at least, 
this enquiry must ever be regarded with infinite satisfaction, inasmuch as it has more 
intimately acquainted him with his duty, enlarged his knowledge, and strengthened his 

* Errata, page 21. f See Advertisement to the Errata, 

X Defense of the true translations of the holie Scriptures. London. 1563. 

C 



xviii 



PREFACE. 



conviction, that the genuine principles of Christianity are those*, which are received and 
inculcated by the Church of which he is a member. 

It now remains to say a few words respecting the design of these pages, preparatory 
to what will follow in detail. 

It would be an idle task to enter into a vindication of the Protestant Translation of 
the Bible ; the more immediate object in view being to defend it against the objections 
made by Ward to particular passages, and to shew, that there appears the strongest 
evidence of their correctness, as they now stand. To expect that any answer to his 
Errata, would receive the perusal of Romanists in general, would be the extreme of 
folly ; when their clergy are so desirous to keep them in *ignorance, and to f withhold 
from them every source of information connected with their religious creed ; and when 
it is but too well known that the avrog e<pq of the most unlettered of their priests, 
would more than out-weigh in their minds, the decisions of all the Protestant Univer- 
sities in Europe. It will, notwithstanding, be gaining some advantage to the cause of 
true religion, should even a few of that persuasion venture to steal a glance into these 
heretical pages; for although they may obstinately persist in error, they may, neverthe- 
less, be induced to view their Protestant countrymen in a more charitable light, when 
they see " the reason," they can give, " of the hope that is in them ;" and thus by 
becoming less intolerant, and less bigoted, they may be rendered better men and better 
Christians. From that quarter, it is granted, no greater good can be expected. A 
most desirable end will also have been attained, if it but contribute to remove from 
society that disgusting affectation of liberality, which characterises the present age ; if 
it but stimulate those of the Protestant Clergy, who, from conforming to the prevailing 
humour, may be betrayed into a total indifference about subjects of this kind, to explore 
the sacred records themselves; if it but induce them to become the advocates of truth, 
and to enlighten such as are in error; if it set them on the enquiry, whether their religion, 
and their own communion in particular, be not those they would embrace, were they now 
required, for the first time, to fix their choice; if it engage the intelligent and well-informed 
among the Protestant Laity, in the same godly employment, and unite both in defence of 

* A remarkable instance of this kind occurred, during one of those conversations held with Dr. Coppinger, 
respecting the propriety of admitting the New Testament into the poor school of Midleton. On one of his relatives 
remarking, that ' the Bible was the driest stuff he ever read the R. R. Dr. quaintly rejoined, c that so it was, indeed, 
very dry reading.' This is critically the una et eadem vox of the Popish clergy. They decry reason, discourage 
free enquiry, and instruct their flocks to look up to them as that living, speaking authority, compared with 
which, Scripture itself is a dead letter. 

t In the Dublin Correspondent of Nov. 10, 1810, a letter from Maynooth, signed Catholicus, appeared, 
stating that the cause of expulsion of nineteen students from that College, proceeded from certain books being 
found in their possession. It appears that the ' certain' books were Protestant ones, such as the superintendant of 
that enlightened seminary would pronounce libri exitiosi et damnabiles! 



PREFACE. 



xix 



their holy Jerusalem at a time in which it is assailed, as well by its open foes from with- 
out, as its no less formidable enemies from * within ; in whatever way the superstition of 
the one, or the enthusiasm of the other, can affect it. 

In furtherance of these ends, the author has used his most unwearied industry in 
those hours which he was able to detach from the duties of his situation, and has exer- 
cised his best judgment in selecting the subject matter of this production from the mate- 
rials with which he was supplied. Not being without apprehensions, that his answer 
may be expected to be more complete, he must declare that he has prepared it under 
circumstances of peculiar disadvantage, as he has had but occasional assistance from a 
public library, and but limited intercourse with those, by whose superior judgment and 
learning he might be benefited. 

* An expose of the principles held by those of the Established Clergy, who are designated by the title of 
1 Calvinistic Methodists,' but who boldly arrogate to themselves that of true Churchmen, appeared in August 
last in the Eclectic Review. Since that period, it has been re-published in an abridged state both in Dublin and 
Cork. Its author has undertaken to controvert the opinions expressed by the Bishop of Lincoln, in his Refutation 
of Calvinism. That he has not succeeded in his design, a brief extract from his remarks will shew. In page 12, 
he attempts to prove that there is a palpable contradiction between certain passages in his Lordship's work, and 
for this purpose instances the following one in page 130, viz. " there is no necessary connexion between 
faith and good works," as clashing with that in p. 160, viz. " true faith produces good works, as naturally 
as a tree produces its fruits." There is no doubt, but that on the face of this statement he appears to establish 
his point. But what will the reader think of the candour of the Censor, when he is told, that in the former 
passage, the Bishop speaks of a passive faith, a general belief in the truths of the Gospel, such as Simon Magus 
entertained, and such as St. Paul alluded to, in his first epistle to the Corinthians ; while in the latter he makes 
express mention of a lively, operative faith, bringing forth its natural fruit of good works ? If he consult the 
book itself, he will perceive, that there is not the remotest variance between the passages in question, and that 
the contrivance resorted to resembles those practised by the low and interested cunning of Popish Pole- 
mics. Of the Bishop himself, he thus speaks: (page 16.) While his Lordship's f attention is fixed on one topic, 
he keeps pretty clear of error. But he appears to have no compass of thought. He cannot take in the whole of a 
subject at a view." Alas ! what has the author of these poor pages to expect, when so little mercy is shewn to 
one of the profoundest scholars, and ablest divines of the day ? 

If then, as the venerable Bishop of Durham says, (Sermons, p. 436.) it be the duty of the orthodox 
divine, " to cry aloud and spare not the unscriptural errors of Popery," is it not equally his duty to be ' instant in 
season, and out of season,' in his opposition to the no less unscriptural errors of Calvinism ? For certain it is, 
that the propagators of the latter, who pretend to be acted on by the irresistible, or, to speak in the cant of the 
qualified Calvinists, (there can be no such tiling as Calvinism, qualified and purged of its obnoxious tenets ; it is a 
system of that nature, that the person who holds one part, holds all,) by the " certain" impulses of the Holy 
Spirit, are more decidedly hostile to the doctrines, and to the well-being of the Established Church, than even 
the deluded advocates of the former. 

It was probably with a view to the prevention of such principles as those disseminated by the Eclectic 
Reviewers, that several of the Irish Bishops, but particularly their Lordships of Cloyne and Cork, have in their 
visitatorial capacities, each issued a peremptory order, that no clergyman, not under their control, (whether Calvi-- 
nian or Orthodox,) should preach in any pulpit, within their respective dioceses, without special permission. 

c 2 



XX 



PREFACE. 



In the arrangement pursued by him, he has been principally guided by Fulke's 
Defense, which, as has been already observed, appeared in answer to Martin's Dis- 
covers, &c. So, that as the Errata is nothing more than an extract from MaFtin's prior 
work, the present answer may be considered as a digest, not only of Fulke, but of 
other eminent authorities, who, since the Reformation, have defended Protestantism 
from the attacks of Popery. Therefore, the only, it must not be said merit, but credit, 
which is laid claim to for this production, is, that as it has been conceived, and under- 
taken with the best intentions, — those of a desire to repel actual misrepresentation, and 
to defend those truths in which all Protestants are so deeply interested, — so it has been 
executed with the utmost fidelity and correctness in its statements and quotations. 
Beyond the task of arranging, condensing, and directing against Popish cavils in their 
modern form, the valuable materials of the learned divines who have gone before him 
on the same ground, the author does not take credit to himself ; and whether he be 
entitled to any even upon this score, it is for an enlightened public to judge. Before 
them he presumes to make his appearance ; and while he appeals to their liberality in 
behalf of his own exertions, and entreats them candidly to excuse such faults and over- 
sights as he may have committed, he cannot but express a hope, that the example of 
his industry, at least, will be imitated, and his design followed up, and perfected, by 
others more competent to the undertaking. 

The Revisers of the Protestant Bible in 16 10, were men whose candour and ability, 
in the discharge of the sacred duty imposed on them, cannot be impeached except by 
the most obstinate bigot ; nor questioned, but by the most confirmed sceptic. Their 
translation, the one now in use, is of unrivalled excellence, and, as Gray forcibly expresses 
it, " is a most wonderful and incomparable work, equally remarkable for the general 
fidelity of its construction, and the magnificent simplicity of its language." Bishop 
Lowth, too, than whom no man ever lived better qualified to pronounce on its merits, con- 
sidered it as the best standard of the English language. When engaged in the execution 
of their task, they altered about thirty texts, and having no other object at heart, than 
the cause of truth, would with equal fairness, have reduced the remaining passages, 
between which a difference existed, to uniformity, if the genius of the languages, from 
which they derived their translation, or the meaning of the inspired writers admitted it. 
Exclusive of the Hebrew of the Old Testament, the Septuagint Version of it, and the 
various Greek copies of the New Testament, they called in to their assistance even the 
standard of the Popish Church, — the Latin Vulgate by Jerome. Nay, they consulted 
the very imperfect English Translations of Rheims and Douay. And, notwithstanding 
this fairness on their part, their labours, on the authority of Ward, are branded with the 
imputation of error. 



PREFACE. XXI 

The entire number of texts set down by Ward as erroneous amounts to about 140 ; 
and of these, he considers no fewer than 120 as " damnable corruptions," and accord- 
ingly embodies them in (what Dr. Milner calls) his Polyglott ; at the same time exhibit- 
ing the parallel Latin and English versions of the Popish Bible. The remaining 
number, which consists of about twenty, he adverts to only in a general way ; because 
he says, " we do not look upon these as done with any ill design." But had he acted 
on those fair and honourable principles, upon which controversy should always be con- 
ducted, he would have deducted the number of the texts, which he acknowledges to 
have been amended, from the number he calls corrupted; in which case, the residue 
would be confined to those, for which alone the Church of England is responsible. To 
those alone, in truth, the author feels himself immediately bound to direct his attention ; 
yet, at the same time, he has deemed it expedient to bring under revision the entire 
range of texts objected to by Ward, lest it might be supposed or pretended, that the 
omission of any was an admission of the justice of the objections brought against that 
particular part. 

It may be observed, that all these texts, taken as they stand, may be comprised 
under three general heads : First ; those which are the same, or the same in substance ini 
both versions. Secondly ; those which are so obscure in the original, whether Hebrew« 
or Greek, as to make it difficult to determine, which translation in, English is to be 
preferred. The Popish doctrines dependant on the passages, which come under , these 
two heads, are not established by the one, nor, as the Popish clergy complain, combated 
by the other translation. And thirdly ; those texts, and they the greater number, which 
are truly and literally rendered in the Protestant Bible, as on , reference may be seen, and 
only mistranslated in the Rhemish one. And that they will never be rectified in this, is 
most probable, since they uphold the doctrines which relate to transubstmitiation, 
celibacy, penance, images, and purgatory, &c. The better to illustrate the meaning, 
and exhibit the just interpretation of each text, the plan laid down in Ward's book, has 
been strictly adhered to. According to it, the reader will perceive at one view, the 
parallel constructions in the different languages.' 

The First Column contains the references. 

In the Second, the Greek of the New Testament as collated by Mills, Wetstein, 
and Griesbach : and the Greek Version of the Old Testament according to the seventy, 
are given. Holmes's LXX, in the texts which occur belonging to the pentateuch, has been 
consulted. In order to preserve uniformity, it has been thought better to retain the title 
Original Greek in those columns, where the Septuagint reading is only given, than to 
vary it, according as the texts belonged to the New or the Old Testament. 



xxii 



PREFACE. 



In the Third, the reading of the Vulgate quoted by Ward is inserted. Under it 
are subjoined occasional selections from Pagninus's translation of the Bible; or, as it is 
better known under another name, from that of Arias Montanus, where the Latin varies 
from that of Jerome. This version has been chosen in consequence of the high esti- 
mation in which it was held by the Popish Church. And although ^Father Simon 
objects to it, as being too literal ; yet he honestly confesses, that Walton preferred it to 
all other translations, and that Pope Gregory XIII. in his epistle to Philip II. of Spain, 
pronounced the Polyglott of which it constituted a part, — " Opus vere aurcum" 

In the Fourth, the Rhemish Translation is included. This title, although not 
strictly proper, has, in imitation of Ward, been retained. The New Testament only 
was translated at Rheims; the version of the Old Testament having been executed at 
Douay, in about twenty-eight years afterwards. As he could scarcely have been igno- 
rant of this circumstance, he betrays, to say the least of it, great inaccuracy in not 
noticing it. 

In the Fifth, Beza's Latin text of the New Testament is given. Here also are 
inserted occasional selections from Montanus's Bible, where he agrees with Beza. This 
agreement between the translation of so eminent a Popish divine as Montanus, and that 
of Beza, one of the leading Reformers, is a corroborative proof, that the passages in the 
Protestant Bible condemned by Ward as corruptions, and which King James's Transla- 
tors have rendered agreeably to the sense, in which those two learned men understood 
them, so far from being defective, are perfect translations. In this column, such Hebrew 
words as Ward quotes, are now and again adduced, together with Montanus's Latin. 

The Sixth Column contains those texts which Ward calls mistranslations of the 
Protestant Bibles of 1562. 1577- and 1579, under the head Bishops Bible. This 
Version is designedly selected from among the early ones, as the principal part of its 
framers were of episcopal rank, and distinguished for their piety and learning : a cir- 
cumstance which, while it shews their fitness for the task, is every way justificatory of 
the purity of their motives. Next, because it made its appearance in 1568, being nearly 
an intermediate period between the earliest and latest of the preceding dates. And 
lastly, because Ward has left it in doubt, to which of the f five versions, which were 

* Crit. Hist, of the O. Test. Book ii. c. 20. et passim. 

A. D. 



f Coverdale's Bible 1535 

Matthews's Bible 1537 

The Great Bible 1539 

Cranmer's Bible 1540 

The Geneva Bible , . , , , 1560 



PREFACE. 



xxiii 



made before 1562, he refers those dates; whether to different editions of one and the 
same Bible, or to editions of different Bibles published at those periods. 

And the Seventh Column comprises the parallel passages from King James's Bible. 

As the Church of England does not lay claim to infallibility, none of her members 
need blush to allow, that this last version demonstrates the inaccuracy of the preceding 
ones, in some particular texts. And, as it is frankly admitted, that these are in consequence 
superseded, none but the enemies of truth will arraign them, disused as they are, of 
obscuring any of the fundamental doctrines of Christianity. This circumstance, how- 
ever, is unaccountably overlooked by Ward ; for he roundly asserts, that the people of 
England were misled during the reigns of three of their monarchs, by the use of adul- 
terate versions of the Scriptures. But whatever excuse might be advanced for him in 
uttering such a slander, when on the eve of flying from his native country, none surely 
can be alleged for Doctor Milner, in repeating it under the semblance of a truth. 
* " If*'' says he, " Ward makes his charges good, though it be only with respect to those 
early versions, he gains his cause." It must not have occurred to this Right Rev. Doctor, 
that when he spoke thus hypothetically, he admitted the possibility, either of the 
charges being unsupported by Ward, or that they may be refuted by others. But waving 
this consideration, a revival of the charge comes with a bad grace from a Popish Bishop 
of the present day. 

That the early English Versions of the Protestant Bible required revision, and alte- 
ration, will excite no surprise, when it is considered, what a ferment existed in the times 
in which they were made, and how imperfect the English language then was, which 
necessarily became the medium of interpretation. But how much more pointedly, and 
justly, might it be retorted against the Popish Doctors, that the discordant copies of the 
Vulgate, that Urim and Thummim of their Church, have, on the principle applied by 
Ward to the English Bibles, deceived not merely a single nation, but all Christendom ; 
and that the people wandered in the mazes of uncertainty, not during the reigns of two 
or three monarchs only, but for centuries, in the most tranquil, as well as in the most 
troublous times ; and that, too, after the Latin language had arrived at its highest pitch 
of refinement and elegance. 

It may be readily conceived, that this will not be listened to, at least will not be 
believed, by those who maintain the infallibility of their Church. However, as the 
obstinacy and incredulity of such people are not designed to be removed by these pages, 
it may not be unacceptable to an opposite class of readers, to have presented to them, 

* Inquiry. Sec. Ed. p. 24 U 



\ 



SXtV PREFACE. 

a brief, historical account of the Vulgate itself, as affording sufficient grounds for the 
statement which has been made. 

About the middle of the second century, a period removed from the age of the 
Apostles, and their immediate successors, and when the gift of tongues had ceased in the 
Church, the necessity of a Latin translation, both of the books of the Old Testament, 
and of the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles, became indispensable. In conse- 
quence, versions in that language, now more generally spoken than any other, were 
multiplied by the learned and pious men of that day. The most remarkable of these 
was that called the Italic Version. Of this, Jerome, towards the conclusion of the 
fourth century, undertook the correction ; because the copy of the Septuagint Transla- 
tion of the Old Testament which it followed, was defective, and that, in some passages of 
the New Testament, the Latin Translation did not fairly represent the meaning of the 
Greek text. His correction, however, did not extend farther, as he suffered other minor 
deviations to remain as he found them. He afterwards made a translation of the Old 
Testament from the Hebrew into Latin, which, (with the exception of the Psalms, and 
some other books of the Old Testament, as given in the Italic Version, which he embo- 
died into his work,) is that called the *Vulgate. This version of the Scriptures, not- 
withstanding its excellence and antiquity, does not appear, even in St. Bernard's time, to 
have been generally received into the Popish Church, as he does not always use it. 
However, from the twelfth century, in which he flourished, to the beginning of the 
sixteenth, and indeed to the present day, in a modified state, the Vulgate is esteemed by 
it, as an unerring record of the Divine word. 

From the period at which Jerome finished his Version, to that when printing was 
invented, an interval of nearly a thousand years, no attempt was made, either to revise 
or correct it. During this long repose, learned men confined their researches rather to 
the discovery of allegorical meanings and abstruse significations, in the texts of Scrip- 
ture, than to that of their true and natural sense, or of their genuine and unadulterated 
reading. And as to the general contents of the Sacred Volume itself, they never enter- 
tained an idea beyond that of making transcripts from it. f Cardinal Ximenes first set 

* See Simon's Crit. Hist. Book ii. c. xi. Kennicott's Diss. vol. ii. p. 439. And also, Masch's Ed. of Le Long, 
vol. ii. p. 28. The latter says, " Opus Vulgafae versionis est opus plurium auctorum, et ex versionibus Itala, 
Hieronymiana, aliisque compositum." Professor Michaelis too (Introduction, &c. vol. i. c. iv. p. 110) mentions 
that St. Jerome, when making his translation, reckoned up no fewer than seventy Latin MSS. differing so mate- 
rially from each other, that their variations could not be explained, on the principle of different readings, but were, 
rather the result of different translations. 

f See Rees's New Cyclopaed. Article Bible. 



PREFACE. 



XXV 



about translating the Old Testament, from the Hebrew into Latin, and rectifying the 
errors which had crept into the Vulgate. As to Lyranus, who preceded him, he only 
wrote a commentary on the Latin Bible. The Cardinal, about the year 1502, inserted 
the Vulgate, corrected and altered, in the Complutensian edition of his Polyglott ; and in 
1532, R. Stephens edited an improved Latin Translation of the Bible at Paris. Beside 
these, and the Doctors of Louvain, who enriched Stephens's edition with various read- 
ings of several Latin MSS. none of equal eminence, in the Popish communion, appear 
to have been engaged in the revision and emendation of what may be called the modern 
Vulgate, until the pontificates of Popes Pius IV. and V. and Gregory XIII. ; at which 
period, numerous editions were published, widely *difFering from each other. Although 
Gregory's Latin Bible was declared to have been restored to its original integrity, 
Sixtus V. his immediate successor, published another edition, which,. by a bull issued in 
1589, he pronounced true, and resolved that it should, without hesitation, be considered 
that which the council of Trent acknowledged as authentic, twenty-five or thirty years 
before ! This extraordinary declaration of Sixtus evidently originated in a most absurd 
article of the decree passed by the Fathers assembled at that council. Absurd it was, 
as, before it was framed, they acknowledged that the edition of the Vulgate mentioned 
in it was very defective. The article runs thus, " f If any person does not esteem these 
books, with all their parts, as contained in the Vulgate Edition, to be Scriptures and 
Canonical, let him be anathema." Notwithstanding that Sixtus finished his edition of 
the Vulgate, as is fully set forth in the bull bearing the above date, yet ^Ward, in con- 
tradiction to this fact, says, that he only began it, but that it was " undertaken and 
happily finished by his successor Clement VIII. answerable to the desire and absolute 
intention of his predecessor Sixtus." But this, evidently, is nothing more than a plau- 
sible pretext to keep up the appearance of consistency between their Holinesses. The 
defence set up by Ward is, that Clement's edition is the identical one, which Sixtus had 

* " Injuria temporum, variisque casibus, librariorum ignorantia et oseitantia, multa inepsere qua; per 
Correctoria Biblica emendate voluerunt antiquiores critici. Ad antiques codices revocata et emendata deniquc, 
maximal) dignitatem et auctoritatem nacta est in Cone. Trident. Sess. iv. Can. 2." Vid. Le. Long. Ed. Masch. 
vol. ii. p. 28. Again, he thus describes the proceedings of Popes Sixtus V. and Clemens VIII. " Jussu Sixti V. 
a viris ad hoc opus delegatis, versio latina iterum sub examen vocata, recognita, emendata publice prodiit, 
anno 1590. Constitutione munita, qua ex certa scientia, deque apostolic® potestatis plenitudine, pro vera, legi 
timd, authentka, indubitata, declaratur. Iterum biennio vix peracto Clemens VIII. ex eadem apostolicee potestatis 
plenitudine, novam emisit editionem authenticam, quae non men's vitiis typographicis, sed haud levioris 
momenti lectionibus a priori authentica recedit. Ibid. p. 50. 



f Mosh. Eccl. Hist. vol. iv. p. 214. 

d 



% Errata, p. 25, 



XXY 1 PREFACE. 

in Ms mind's eye, previous to his death. Indeed, *Clement in the Preface to his Bible 
says so ; but although he does, and although he also intimates, that Sixtus intended a 
new edition, yet he does not attempt to prove it. Nor could he, as, after Sixtus printed 
his edition, he corrected with his own hand the faults which he discovered, a fact acknow- 
ledged in his own f bull, but yet studiously suppressed by Clement. But besides his 
having made several corrections with his pen, Sixtus caused several words to be 
preprinted, and pasted on every single copy of that edition, which proves that he did not 
afterwards intend to publish a new one. 

Clement is accused, and not without foundation, with adding to, altering, and taking 
from the text, to favour the Popish doctrine. Of this, among others, the contested 
passage in St. John's first Epistle ; viz. " ires sunt qui testificantnr in ccelo, &c." is a 
strong proof. It is essentially requisite to give this instance, if for no other reason 
than to shew the reader the extent of Ward's knowledge of Scripture, so far as regards 
the Trinity. §He says, that the preceding " is the \\only text in the Bible, that can be 
brought to prove that great mystery." Now, as to this particular text, there is stronger 
evidence that it does not, than that it does, belong to the Epistle of St. John. For it is 
not found in the Italic, nor Syriac Versions. Erasmus did not consider it genuine, as it 
was not noticed by the most eminent of the early Fathers ; his words are, " «Hqui (scil. 
patres) cum in Arianos scriberent, hunc locum neutiquam omississent, si genuinum esse 
crediderunt." On the same side rests an authority, which will not suffer by a compa- 
rison with any of either ancient or modern days, that of the **Bishop of Lincoln. But, 
beside this particular instance of interpolation, in other points, the infallibility of 
Clement VIII. is directly at variance with that of Sixtus V ; and it may be asked Doctor 
Milner, and his Episcopal Brethren, how they will reconcile these contradictories, if they 

* " Quod cum jam esset excusum, et ut in lucem emitteretur, idem Pontifex operant) daret, animadvertens 
non paua in Sacra Biblia praeli vitia irrepsisse, qua? iterata diligentia indigere viderentur, tamen opus sub 
incudem revocandum censuit et decrevit. Id vero cum morte prceventus prsestare non potuisset, &c." Clemen- 
tine Edition of the Vulgate, p. 6. 

f " Eaque res quo magis incorrupte perficeretur, nostra nos ipsi mantj correximus, si qua praeli vitia 
-obrepserant." 

X Kennicott makes mention of a copy of this description being preserved in the Bodleian Library in 
Oxford, in which, beside Sixtus's autographical corrections of some passages, words newly printed are pasted on 
those which he considered erroneous. Dissert, vol. i. p. 197. 

§ Errata, p. 27. 

|| Will the Popish clergy rest so important a doctrine on a doubtful text, and overlook the following ones : 
mz. Matt. c. xxviii. v. 19. 2 Cor. c. xiii. v. 14. Rev, c. i. v. 4? 

<j[ Pol. Synops. in loc, ** See Elements of Theology, vol. ii. p. 90. 



PREFACE. 



xxvii 



but allow the long established principle in logic, that of two, both cannot be true ? It 
is impossible they can, and therefore they fly to an ^evasion, as pitiful as it is unsuitable 
to their purpose. 

James, first keeper of the Bodleian Library, having with indefatigable labour com- 
pared the Bibles of these two Popes, verse by verse, discovered no fewer than f two thou- 
sand articles in which they differed ! Some of these, certainly, are but trivial varia- 
tions ; yet others of them are diametrically opposite to each other, and all are sufficient 

* " Slight verbal errors of copyists and printers must have found place in every copy and edition ; but it has 
been the care of several succeeding Popes to have these corrected as much as possible." Milner's Inquiry,. 
page 348. 

f The following texts, extracted from James's Papal War, are given as they stand in the Sixtine and 
Sixtine-Clementine editions of the Vulgate. The tone of confidence observed in the Preface to each of those 
Bibles is singularly remarkable. Sixtus V. speaks to this effect; that agreeably to the decree of the Council of 
Trent, he having called upon God, and relying on St. Peter's authority, for the public good of the Church, felt 
little hesitation about publishing that Bible. He sets forth his labour, fn selecting the best readings ; his design, 
that according to the decree of the Trent Council, the Vulgar Bible might be most correctly printed ; and his 
performance, viz. that he had accurately purged this edition from various errors, and with utmost diligence restored 
it (in pristinam veritatem) to its ancient verity. After this he declares his will, viz. he decrees that that edition 
should be taken for tlmt Vulgar Latin, which the Council of Trent declared authentic. And this, he says, he 
does, (as is pertinently observed by Le Long. Vid. note *, page xxv.) from his own certain knowledge and plenitude 
of Apostolic authority. And that it ought to be received as such, (sine ulla dubitatione aut controversia) without 
any doubt or controversy. After this, Clement VIII. in 1582, sends forth his edition of the Vulgate, and 
expressly requires, that it also be received under the same circumstances. The differences between the two are 
numerous. Those here pointed out will suffice as an example. 





Sixtus V. 


V 

Clemens VIII. 


John vi. 33. 


Panis verus est. 


Panis Dei est. 


Alteration. 


Luke viii. 27- 


Cum de navi egressus esset, &c. 


Cum egressus esset, &c. Omission. 


Isaiah xix. 12. 


Annuncient tibi. 


Annuncient tbi. Typograph. error. 


1 Kings vii. 9. 


i»trinsecus. 


Extrinsecus. 


Contradiction. 


Exodus xvi. 3. 


Trtduxistis. 


Eduxistis. 


Id. 


2 Ezra iii. 28. 


Ad portam. 


A porta 


Id. 


Eccl. xxi. 15. 


2/isipientia. 


Sapientia. 


Id. 


Hab. i. 13. 


Non respicis. 


Respicrs. 


Id. 


John vi. 65. 


Credentes. 


Non credentes. 


Id. 


Levit. xxvii. If. 


Estimationem suam. 


Estimationem tuam. Id. 


Deut. xxiv. 6. 


^pposuit, tibi. 


Opposuit. 


Id. 


Josh. ii. 18. 


Signum non fuerit. 


Signum fuerit. 


Id- 


Ibid xi. 19. 


Quae se non traderet. 


Se traderet. 


Id. 


2 Peter i. 16. 


Doctas. 


Indocfas. 


Id. 


Yet are both these editions to be received on the authority of the Pope and Council ; although, with the 



d 2 



XXVI11 



PREFACE. 



to shew, that their works partake of the nature of all human productions. James 
published the entire collection in 1611 in one volume, which he entitled Papale Bellum, 
in the Dedication to which he thus forcibly expresses himself; <f institui comparare 
Papam cum Papa, Sixtum cum Clemente, Octavum cum Quinto :" and as the result he 
thus concludes, " liquebit ex odio hujus comparationis, quam dispar et dissimilis sit ratio, 
Sixti et dementis ; ait Clemens, negat Sixtus ; ait Sixtus, negat Clemens." Thus is 
infallibility opposed to infallibility, and the excommunkatio major lataz sententice is thun- 
dered forth against the slightest change in either copy, and yet both are pronounced 
authentic, and sent forth to be received and maintained unalterably for ever. 

There is not, probably, a single objection urged against the infallibility of the Church 
of Rome, which carries with it such force as this. The Popish Doctors say, that his 
Holiness, assisted by his conclave of Cardinals and his Council, cannot err in matters of 
faith. But, if to determine what is, and what is not, Scripture, be not to act in matters 
of faith, it is impossible to say what v is. Sixtus V. sets about preparing a perfect 
edition of the Latin Bible, collects the most- ancient MSS. as well as the best printed 
copies, summons the most eminent *scholars to assist in the prosecution of the work, 
assembles a congregation of Cardinals, and presides over all with a zeal not to be 
exceeded by his knowledge. The result of their joint labours and study is an edition of 
the Vulgate declared to be corrected in the best manner possible, and published with a 
tremendous f excommunication of any person, who would dare ever afterwards to make 
the minutest change. Notwithstanding this, after an intervention of the reigns of 
three Popes, (Urban, Gregory XIV. and Innocent IX,) which did not exceed two years, 
Clement publishes another edition repugnant to the former, which, in turn, he pro- 
nounces authentic, and enforces by a similar sentence of excommunication. 

If, then, Sixtus's Bible was perfect, Clement, with his assessors, must have been 
fallible, and vice versa. So that conceding to Ward, that Sixtus did intend a better 

exception of the three first passages, they directly contradict each other. Kennicott points out three discrepances 

which have been overlooked by Doctor James. 

Heb. mm j?±n< mm mm mm umn 

Lxx. rcTfctxoffws xys. oxrctKoaizis mma,MOiu.i 

2 Chron. c. xiii. v. 3. Quadraginta Millia. Octoginta M\ v. 17. Quinquaginta M\ Sixtus. jcontra- 

Quadringenta m\ Octingenta m\ Quingenta m\ Clemens, t diction. 

See Kennicott's Dissertations, vol. i. p. 197. 

* " Lectissimis aliquot sanctae Romanes Ecclesiae Cardinalibus, aliisque turn sacrarum literarum, turn 
variamm linguarum peritissimis viris ; adhibitis antiquissimis codicibus manuscriptis, &c." Pref. ad Vueg. p. 6. 

f The form of the excommunication, which may be met with in the concluding part of the last note 
en the eighth Article of the Appendix, is richly entitled to the reader's attentive perusal. 



PREFACE. 



xxix 



edition, where is the certainty that had Sixtus lived, he, and his council, might not have 
exhibited as strong signs of fallibility, in the second, as in the first edition ? 

Ward, it is admitted, endeavours to palliate this palpable incongruity in the copies 
of the Vulgate edited by those Popes, when he says, that the opposite readings of 
Sixtus's and Clement's editions of the Vulgate are to be attributed *" to the negligence 
of printers." But any person at all acquainted with the process of printing must per- 
ceive what a wretched palliation this is. Printers, through negligence, might, by 
putting in, or leaving out, a letter, or a syllable, give a new turn to a particular pas- 
sage. But when has it occurred, that they substitute not merely a letter, or a syllable, 
but an entire word of a different signification, for another ; or that they add, and omit 
in a variety of places, as fancy leads them, letters, syllables and words ? So that, according 
to Ward's reasoning, there were no aberrations of Sixtus's Bible from his manuscript, 
but what were caused by the negligence of printers^ and that had he lived to re-edit his 
work, he would have corrected the few typical errors which had crept into it. There is no 
question, but he would rectify, in a subsequent edition, the typical errors of a preceding 
one; but surely, he 'would never think of producing so complete a change, as appears 
to have taken place in the Clementine edition, which was announced under his name. 
That he would not, if the edict issued by him in 1589, and other evidence were wanting, 
may be proved by the mention of one historical, and well- authenticated fact : viz. the 
resolution with which Sixtus refused to make any the slightest alteration in his edition of 
the Vulgate, when Philip II. King of Spain, complained of its being too favourable 
to the party which opposed the Church of Rome. So that the story, so plausibly told, 
is nothing but a pious forgery, invented to uphold the authority claimed for its chief 
Pastors. When to this is added, that numerous editions of the Vulgate have been pro- 
duced, since the dawn of the Reformation, differing from each other so much, as to 
leave it a doubtful matter which comes nearest the original translation of Jerome, 
with what shew of good sense, can the Protestant Bible now used be condemned, on 
the ground of its not agreeing with a standard, which evidently is itself not yet fixed ? 

With respect to the Douay Bible, it will be necessary to say but a few words. 
A wider difference cannot' be pointed out between the Protestant Bible of 1610, and 
those versions mentioned by Ward of 1562, 1577, ana * 1579? m the passages which he 
quotes, than can be proved to exist between the last Dublin and Edinburgh editions of 
the Douay Old, and the Rhemish New Testaments, and the original ones of 1582 and 

t James, in the Preface to his Index Expurgatorius, calls this a most brilliant fiction. It is in vain, he says, 
to expect that the work of any author, whether pseudo-catholic, or not, should be engaged (sanum) perfect, after 
undergoing inquisitorial purgation, for this reason ; " cum a Clemente VIII. Biblia Sixti V. Picecessoris sui de 
industria commutata, susque deque versa sint, splendidissimo mendacio, ob errata typographic^, &c." 



XXX 



PREFACE. 



1609 ? in those particular passages. It would be out of place to specify instances here, 
as the reader can satisfy himself of their existence by adverting to the texts in the 
columns headed by the title Rhemish Version. 

Fulke, Fuller, and many other learned writers, since their day, have condemned 
the translation of the Rhemists, on account of the number of terms which it retains, 
unintelligible to the generality of readers. Fulke observed, that " by all means, they 
(viz. the Rhemish Translators) laboured to suppress the light of truth under one pretence 
or other while Fuller's quaint remark was, that the Version of the Scriptures, " made 
by the Jesuits of Douay and Rheims, ivas a translation which needed to be translated." 
That learned * Prelate, the Bishop of Lincoln, speaks nearly to the same effect. " They 
retained in it," says he, " many Eastern, Greek, and Latin f words, and contrived to 
render it unintelligible to common readers." After these opinions, it must excite no 
small surprise, that the last is the only objection, which ^Doctor Miiner ever heard made 
to the translation of the Bible used in the Popish Church. When a man like him 
almost exclusively restricts his reading to books written on one side of a subject, can 
the incompetency of the Popish clergy (whose course of study is still more limited) to 
assign any other reason, why they think as they do, than because they so think, and the 
total ignorance, which they oftentimes betray about the saving truths of the Gospel, be 
wondered at ? As this is a subject not immediately connected with the one in hand, it is 
unnecessary to enlarge on it. One practical inference, however, may be deduced from 
what has been said \ and that is, that those who are so vulnerable themselves, should be 
reserved in making charges against others. 

The author has now to notice a fact, which falls strictly within the range of the 
present controversy. It has been communicated to him by an ^English Prelate of the 
first distinction, in so obliging a way, as to demand the expression of his most respect- 
ful acknowledgments. The point to which his attention has been directed, is the insin- 
cerity of the Church of Rome in deliberately sanctioning Versions, which pretend to be 
true Versions, when they are not. A most singular instance of this kind occurs, in a 
||French New Testament, published by the Jesuits at Bourdeaux in 1686", with the 
permission of the ecclesiastical authorities of that place. As Bishop Kidder, to whom the 

* Elem. Theol. vol. ii. p. 16. f Parascue, Azymes. Gazophylace, &c. &c. 

X Inquiry. Sec. Ed. p. 349. § The Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Ely. 

II Le Nouveau Testament de notre Seigneur J. C. traduit de Latin en Francois par les Theologiens de 
Louvain: imprime a Bourdeaux chez Jacques Mongiron— Millanges, Imprimeur du Roi et du College 1686. 
avec approbation et permission. 



PREFACE. 



xxxi 



Christian world is indebted for the exposure sent forth by him of its numerous, and gross 
falsifications, found no little difficulty in procuring a copy of that curious production, 
and as that difficulty has by this time nearly grown into an impossibility, it is not impro- 
bable that Doctor Milner, or some of his Episcopal brethren, will have the hardihood to 
deny its existence. Should they be disposed to do so, they will have found precedent 
in the conduct of *Baldwin the Jesuit. But in addition to a copy of it in the possession 
of the learned Prelate just spoken of, there is another preserved in the Fagel Library of 
Trinity College, Dublin. And of Bishop Kidder's work, one copy may be met with in 
the library founded by Primate Marsh, near St. Sepulchre's, in that city. So that as these 
works are confessedly scarce, it is desirable to present the reader with some of the texts, 
as they are rendered in the French Testament, and, at the same time, with an abridged 
view of the comments made on them by Bishop Kidder. This, under existing circum- 
stances, is the more to be desired, as the Popish Clergy are in the habit of inveighing 
against the Protestant Version of the Bible ; as they affect to say that Protestants have 
no Bible, or at best, but an adulterate one; as they scoff and derive them on this head ; 
and as they likewise boast that their Church has been the faithful preserver of those 
Divine Oracles But, as Bishop Kidder judiciously remarks, £< here is a proof of their 
insincerity ; here is what may convince any honest man, even of their own communion, 
who is willing to know the truth, in this most important matter. No man will in other 
cases trust a cheat, or a forger of Testaments and Deeds. But how great must this 
wickedness be, when the Holy Oracles of God are corrupted to serve a turn ?" 

It is granted, that the Popish Church of Ireland sanctions the use of no other than the 
Rhemish Bible, (and that, too, in a limited degree,) and that it is purged of many of 
the errors and corruptions which disgrace the Bourdeaux one. But is it guided even by 
that ? Is it not, on the contrary, become a dead letter; whije in theory, as well as in 
practice, they adhere to the falsifications of the French Divines ? So that what has 
been said by Bishop Kidder of the then state of the Popish Clergy, is, after a lapse of 
more than a century, applicable to the existing succession. 

The few passages selected here from the French New Testament, with the literal 
English of the parts corrupted, fully proves the justice of the preceding observations. 

Acts xiii. 2. Or comme ils offroient au Seigneur le sacrifice de la Messe, et qu'ils 
jeunoient, le S. Esprit leur dit. 

Now as they offered unto the Lord the sacrifice of the Mass, &c " 

* Baldwin perceiving that the Papal Bibles, (viz. those of Sixtus V. and of Clemens) united to overthrow 
the boasted infallibility of the Church , of Rome, and knowing the Bible of Sixtus to be extremely scarce, boldly, 
though not unwisely, affirmed, that it loas never published at all ! James's Defence, p. 34. 



xxxii 



PREFACE, 



The foregoing is one of the most notorious falsifications to be found in the French 
Translali n. It was made designedly to support the doctrine of " the Sacrifice of the 
Mass." By it, the Translators departed from the Vulgate, as well as from the English 
Protestant Version. *This is the very passage, respecting which Monsieur Veron, when 
asked why he wrested it from its natural meaning, replied, because he had been often 
asked by Calvinists, what Scripture affirmed that the Apostles said Mass ! 

1 Cor. iii. 15. Si 1'ceuvre de quelqu'un brule, il en portera la perte, mais il sera sauve 
quant a luy, ainsi toutefois comme par lefeu du Purgatoire. 

— — i( but he shall be saved as to himself; yet so, as by the fire of 

Purgatory." 

Here they have added to the text, to prove the existence of the Limbus Patrum. 

2 Cor. vi. 14. Ne vous joignez point par Sacrement de Mariage avec les Infidelles. 
1 Cor. vii. 10. Mais a ceux qui sont conjoints par le Sacrement de Mariage, Je 

leur commande, non point moy, mais ie Seigneur, que la femme ne se separe point du 
Mary. 

" Join not yourselves by the Sacrament of Marriage, &c. 

" But they who are joined by the Sacrament of Marriage, &c." 

In defence of Marriage as a Sacrament, they also corrupted 1 Tim. iv. 3. viz. Con- 
damnans le Sacrement de Mariage, &c. See also Tit. i. 6. Because Protestants deny 
this doctrine, they make the Apostles thus speak against them, as if they were the 
Apostates he points at. 

1 Tim. iv. 1. Or l'Esprit dit clairement, qu'en derniers temps quelques uns se 
separeront de lafoy Romaine, s'adonnans aux esprits d'erreur, et aux doctrines enseignees 
par des diables. 

" Now the Spirit distinctly says, in the latter times, some shall depart from the 
Roman faith, &c." 

Here they are guilty of another forgery, for the purpose of representing the Church 
of Rome as the only Catholic Church. 

* Simon's Crit. Hist, of the New Test. p. 357. 



PREFACE. 



XXX111 



1 Jean. v. 7- Toute iniquite est peche, mais il y a quelque peche qui n'est point 
mortel, mais veniel. 

" There is a sin that is not mortal, but venial" 

Here they add to the text in order to support the distinction drawn by the Church 
of Rome, between mortal and venial sins. 

2 Cor. viii. 19- Et non seulement cela, mais aussi il a este ordonne par les Eglises, 
compagnon de notre Pelerinage, &c. 

<e And not only that, but was also appointed by the Churches the companion of 
our Pilgrimage, &c." 

In this passage St. Paul merely speaks of his having selected a brother to accompany 
him on his travels ; yet in their translation, they affect to shew that the practice of 
pilgrimage is warranted by Scripture. They elsewhere introduce Pelerins, as in 
3 John i. 5, &c. 

Heb. xi. 30. Par la foy les murs de Jericho tomberent, apres une procession de sept 
jours tout autour. 

" By faith the walls of Jericho fell after a procession of seven days." 

That they may establish the antiquity of Popish processions, they make their trans- 
lation speak accordingly. 

In their rendering of 1 Cor. ix. 5, after the words " have we not power to lead 
about a sister, a wife;" they add, pour nous servir en l'Evangile, et nous souvenir 
de se biens : " to serve us in the Gospel, and relieve us out of her goods " 

Luke iv. 8. Serviras de latrie a luy seul. 
" Thou shalt serve him only with latria." 

They make an addition here to the text, to preserve the distinction drawn by their 
Church between Dulia and Latria ; and what shews their inconsistency is, their omit- 
ting it in another text (Matt. iv. 10.) exactly parallel. By the one passage, at least, they 
insinuate that there is ground in Scripture for the worship of creatures. 



XXxiv PREFACE. 

In 2 Pet. iii. YJ . The Vulgate reading is " insipientium errore ;" yet they render it 
erreur de medians heretiques : — ". the error of wicked hereticks." 



Heb. x. 10. Par laquelle volonte nous sommes sanctiflez, a scavoir par l'oblation du 
corps du J. C. une fois fait. 

11. Et tout Sacrificateur se presente chaque jour sacrifiant, et offrant souvent les 
memes hosties, lesquelles ne peuvent jamais oster les pechez. 

12. Mais cettuy-cy offrant une hostie pour les pechez, est assis pour toussiours a la 
dextre de Dieu. 

18. Or ou il y a remission d'icieux, il n'y a plus maintenant d 'oblation legale, pour 
le peche. 

It is unnecessary to detain the reader by making further reference to this singular 
compound of misrepresentation and falsehood. , 

In bringing this prefatory matter to a conclusion, there remains only one point to be 
touched on, and that is, the reason why the term " Catholic" is studiously avoided through- 
out these pages, and other terms, which may be thought reproachful, adopted. The assur- 
ance already given is a pledge, that it has been done without any intention to offend. The 
term Papist, or Romanist, is used in consequence of the claim set up by Doctor Milner, and 
other Popish authors, to the exclusive appellation of Catholic for themselves, and for those 
of their communion ; as well as to assert a right. For to acknowledge that the epithet 
* Catholic' is appropriate to the Church of Rome, and that it is contradistinguished in 
meaning to that of ' Protestant,' would be an act of criminal acquiescence ; inasmuch 
as it would imply, that the Protestant Church did not belong to, and was not within 
the pale of, the Catholic Church of Christ. It is, therefore, imperative on Protestants, 
not only in their writings, but even in their conversation, to discountenance, in every 
possible way, these arrogant pretensions of their Popish Brethren to exclusive catholi- 
city. A specimen of Doctor Milner' s mode of reasoning will justify the caution. * " If 
I ask you, ' what Church you profess in the Apostle's creed to believe in :' you answer 
me, ' in the Holy Catholic Church.' If I proceed to ask you, ' pray, are you a 
Catholic ?' You reply, « No, I am a Protestant.' And if I further interrogate you, 
' is there any place in this town where the Catholics meet to perform divine worship ?' 

* Substance of a Sermon preached at the blessing of the Popish Church of St. Chad's, in the town of 
Birmingham, in Dec. 1809, by the Right Rev. Dr. Milner. 



PREFACE. 



XXXT 



Tou will not fail to point out this Chapel, or else that other Catholic Chapel on the 
other adjoining hill. Who can hear this without exclaiming in admiration : ' How is it 
possible that you believe in the Catholic Church, without being yourself a Catholic ; 
and even while you acknowledge there are persons of a different communion from 
yourself, who are Catholics ?" 

Thus it appears, that Doctor Milner, under the flimsy texture of a sophism, 
assumes the title of e Catholic,' as a right, which has been, even by his own admission, 
in his ' Letters to a Prebendary,' conceded only as a matter of courtesy. 



CONTENTS. • 

SECT. PAGE. 

The Church i. 1 

The Blessed Sacrament and the Sacrifice of the Mass ii. 4 

The Blessed Sacrament and the Altar . . iii. 15 

Priests, Priesthood, and Holy Orders „ ........... iv. 16 

Authority of Priests v. 22 

The single lives of Priests „ vi. 30 

Sacrament of Baptism „ ........... . vii. 36 

Confession and Sacrament of Penance viii. 38 

The honour of the Blessed Lady and the other Saints ix. 44 

The Distinction of Relative and Divine Worship x. 50 

Sacred Images, and the use of them xi. 54 

The Limbus Patrum and Purgatory xii. 66 

Justification and the Reward of Good Works xiii. 77 

Merit and Meritorious Works , xiv. 81 

Free-Will xv. 87 

Inherent Justice U xvi. 93 

Sufficiency of Faith alone xvii. 98 

Apostolic Traditions xviii. 102 

Sacrament of Marriage xix. 107 

Miscellaneous Subjects xx. 109 

Perpetual Sacrifice of Christ's Body and Blood 122 

Abjuratory Clauses examined 124 

Appendix 139 



ADDITIONAL SUBSCRIBERS. 

The Right Hon. and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of London,— 2 Copies. 
The Hon. and Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of Derrv, — 1 Copies. 

/ 



SYNOPSIS, 

&c. &c. &c. 



SECTION /.—THE CHURCH. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion . 


Beza's LatinText. 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K. James'sBible 1611 


Mat. xvi. 1 8. 


Ziuitoo-tar 


Ecclesiam 


Church 


Ecclesiam 


Congregation. 


Church (1) 


xviii. 17. 




Ecclesiaj 


Church 


Ecclesiae 


*Congregation. 


Church (2) 


Ephesians v. 
$3i 24, 25. 
27. 29- 32. 




Ecclesiam 


Church 


Ecclesiam 


Congregation. 


Church (3) 


Heb. xii. 23. 


tit vtM.\%aiob 


Ecclesiae 


Church 


Ecclesise 


^Congregation. 


Church (4) 


Eph. i. 22. 




Ecclesias 


Church 


Ecclesia? 


Congregation. 


Church (5) 



Marked thus * were altered to their present reading A. D. 1611. 



1 5. *E£/£A»)(na. Some men's wit, it has been remarked, resembles a dark lantern, which answers 

their own purpose, and guides them their own way ; but is never known to enlighten others. Of 
this description is the wit, with which fWard prefaces his first article. It suits his purpose so far as to 
lead him to one or two conclusions, which a person might suppose was all he wanted; but leaves no 
other impression on the mind, than that his arguments are as weak as they are ridiculous. 

After complaining that the Protestant Translators suppressed the word Catholic in the title of 
those epistles called Catholics Epistolce, in the two English Bibles of \bQ'2 and 1577 ; and that, in 
their latter translations, they changed it into ' general he sneeringly observes, " as if we should say 
in our creed, we believe in the general church." He then infers the necessity of translating, " according 
to this rule," the question, qua itur ad Catholicam ? " which is the way to the general ?" and the 
words, ergo Catholici sumus, " then we are generals." The true construction of the word, he 
maintains, is ' Catholic,' and appeals to the authority of Eusebius, in support of his assertion. 

J Mintert deduces it from the Hebrew bnp, an assembly, and not from ixxtttep, to call out.- Parkli. in loc. 

t Errata, page 39. 
B 



2 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 

Now, to pass over the wretched quibbling he has had recourse to in drawing the above infe- 
rences, his allegations shall be considered in the order in which they are brought forward. First, 
then, the translators of the bibles alluded to, cannot with justice be said " to leave out" the word 
Catholic, when it is not even once expressed in any text of scripture. Secondly, it is a great 
untruth to say, that Eusebius mentions the Epistolce Catholicce to have been so called " ever since the 
Apostles' time ;" as on this head he is altogether silent ; and only states that, in his own time, they 
were so called. CEcumenius, a writer of the tenth century, in his preface to St. James's Epistle, 
expressly says, Catholicce, id est universale, dicuntur lice, 8$c. " these Epistles are called Catholic, that 
is, universal or general." Here evidently they are so named, in consequence of their not being par- 
ticularly addressed to any one church, as those to the Romans, Corinthians, &c. but generally to the 
faithful. And, thirdly, the Catlwlicce Epistolce are not entitled to the exclusive appellation of Catho- 
lic, with respect to the doctrine they contain, since St. Paul's Epistles furnish doctrine as catholic, or 
orthodox; as perfect (x«9°*°s), and as sound, as any in them. 

Ward's next charge is, that in the first English Bibles the word ' church' was suppressed, " that 
it might seem to the ignorant a good argument against the authority of the church." The English 
Creed, drawn up by the Reformers at the time, in which profession is made of the Catholic ' Church,' 
convincingly proves that not to be the cause, why that word was omitted in those first editions of the 
bible. Moreover, in whatever text the word 'congregation' occurs, a marginal note is added to 
signify, that by that term is meant ' church :' a further proof that no fraud was intended. Finally, 
as the translators rendered the Hebrew word * Vnp cahal, congregation, in the Old Testament, 
they deemed it fit to retain it also in the New Testament, that the ignorant might not suppose God 
had no church under the old dispensation. Be this as it may, it evidently appears, they did not 
suppress ; neither did they depart from the letter, or the meaning of the Holy Ghost. 

St. Luke applies the term ecclesia to Jews, Christians, and Gentiles, when assembled together. 
The Rhemists themselves translated it assembly, in Acts vii. 38, and in one or two places beside. But 
of this, as might be expected, Ward takes no notice. 

What has been stated above, has been offered more by way of explanation, than as an apology for 
the first translators of the Protestant Bible having rendered the Greek word mm^o. ' congregation,' 
rather than ' church.' It is sufficient that the passages, in which it occurs, were altered to their 
present reading, in the last authorised version, viz. that of l6lJ. This, however, is far from 
satisfying fDoctor Milner, who insists that Thomas Ward, his great prototype, gains his cause, if 
lie makes his charges good, though it be only with respect to those early versions ; for, to adopt his 
own quotation of Ward, " the change was made too late to answer the purpose. The people were 
deceived by a vast number of corruptions in the sacred texts, during the reigns of Henry VIII. 
Edward VI. and Elizabeth." This is but saying, in other words, that the grounds, on which the 
Reformation was effected, are thereby invalidated; that the first Reformers were guilty of the sin of 
schism ; and that their successors, the Protestants of the present day, are involved therein. Now, 
Doctor Milner must, at least ought to know, that Protestaats do not justify their religious tenets by 

* Congregatio. Caetus. Buxt. 
X See his Inquiry into certain vulgar opinions. Second edit. p. 341. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



arguments derived from any translation, and that the ORIGINAL is the standard by which they 
regulate their faith and practice. If he be a man of candour, he will admit, that even taking the 
words objected to by Ward, in his first article, as they stand in the early translations made by the 
English Reformers, no fundamental doctrine is dependent thereon ; and that in separating from, and 
protesting against, the corruptions of the Church of Rome, the Church of England, as a separate 
branch of the Church of Christ, has not done more than what the former did at an early stage of its 
existence, when it protested against the usurpation of the Bishop of Constantinople. A few 
words will answer the charge of the sin of schism. — A continuance in, would have been more sinful, 
than a separation from, a church in the corrupt and diseased state 4n which that of Rome was at the 
time of the Reformation. 



Book. Ch.Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6a 


Cant. vi. 9. 


fjua, Eft 


Una 


One 


A. Montanus 
translates the 
Heb. NVJ ipsa. 


*Alone 


but one (6) 



Marked thus * altered to the present reading A. D. 1611. 



6. MlX. It is absurd to object to the addition of "but" which in no way whatever affects the sense. 
A. Montanus translates the Hebrew «»n nn» una ipsa, which rather favours its insertion. Doctor 
Milnersays, Ward did not complain of this word being " foisted" into the text, but of the word one 
being changed into alone. How unfair this, to renew a charge, the grounds for which ceased to exist 
upwards of seventy years before it was first advanced ? 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6n 


Eph. i. 23. 


TO nXtiqUfMX. T» 

ttolvtx in irxm 

TTAsigB/ilEtS. 


plenitudoejus 
qui omnia in 
omnibus ad- 
impletur. 


which is Jilled 
all in all. 


Complementum 
ejus qui omnia im- 
plet in omnibus. A. 
Mont, ejus adim- 
plentis. 


that jilleth, 
he. 


that Jilleth, 
&c. (7) 



7. t T8 Tf'hYjgSfJLSVS. | Montanus and Beza understand this term in the active signification. Coinci- 
dence of opinion, between divines of such opposite ways of thinking, is, on a controverted point, almost 
decisive. But what strengthens the case is this, that the excellence of Montanus's bible, arising from 

J Of profane writers of eminence, Xenophon and Longinus use it actively. 
t In his notes on Theophylact's translation of the word rttagspub, he observes, " qui adimplet, vel adimpletur, verbum enira 

est medium, &c." 
B 1 



4 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



the precise adaptation of his Latin translation to the Hebrew text, has been attested by the most cele- 
brated of the popish universities ; and that he himself had been patronised by Philip the Second of. 
Spain, a monarch every way disposed to encourage popery. Under these circumstances, Montanus, 
surely, will not be suspected of promoting the cause in which Beza was engaged. 

^Erasmus explains nfryp'frw thus, " plenitudo sive impletio ejus qui omnia in omnibus implet." Isi- 
dorus Clarius, too, admits it may be taken either passively or actively. But beside such high authority^ 
the very nature of the passage requires it to be taken actively, as thereby an unnecessary repetition is 
avoided, and the government of ww* is ascertained. To the want of this grammatical accuracy it is 
owing, that Chrysostom's exposition is so forced ; for, according to it, w»t« is put absolutely, or with- 
out any governing word. However, his sense of the passage is the very one which Beza follows. 

-j-Ward observes, " but thus (viz. passively) they will not translate, * because,' says Beza, 1 Christ 
needs no such ^compliment,' and if he need it not, then he may be without a church." Nothing 
can be more dishonest than to suppress the words per se (of himself, i. e. in respect of his divine 
nature) on which the meaning of the passage principally rests, and then to draw a conclusion 
directly opposite to the one intended. Beza's words are, " ut sciamus Christum per se non indigere 
hoc supplemento, &c." This is not saying that Christ may be " a head without a body," nor alluding, 
by the most distant implication, to the invisibility, or the non-existence, of the church, for many 
years, as Ward asserts. Besides, let the reader attend to what Beza elsewhere advances, and then 
judge whether a garbled quotation from his Comments does him justice. " Is enim est Christi in 
ecclesiam amor, ut cum omnia omnibus ad plenum pncstet, tamen se velut mancum et mutilum putat, 
nisi ecclesiam sibi habeat adjunctam'" and then subjoins, " non ideo ecclesia est Christi ^ti^a, quod 
Christus per se ea carere non potest, is enim potius earn implet, &c." 

As to the insinuation thrown out by Ward, in an accompanying note, it will suffice to remark, 
that during the entire period of 1500 years, commencing with the Christian era, there existed, 
without interruption, a church which always protested against the corruptions of Christianity, although 
it had not assumed a settled and determinate shape before the expiration of that period. 



SECTION If.— THE BLESSED SACRAMENT AND THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's LatinTextLBps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6n 


Mat.xxvi.26. 

Markxiv.22. 

- - 


km ivt.vyncac, 


et benedixit. 
etbenedicens 


and blessed 
and blessing 


et cum bene 
dixisset. 

A. M. et be- 
nedicens. 

et cum bene- 
dixisset. 


*and when 
he had ' given 
thanks/ 

*and when he had 
c given thanks.' 


and blessed (8) 
and blessed (9) 



Marked thus * were altered to their present reading A. D. 1611. 



8 and 9. St. Paul,§ and St. Luke,|| who must be considered the best interpreters of the other two 

+ See Annotations on the New Testament, page 533. f Errata, page 39. 

+ To give ' compliment' as a translation of complementum must, it is conceded, be a typical error, rather than have proceeded 
from ignorance in Ward, or his Editor. § 1 Cor. xi. 24. II xxii. 19. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



5 



evangelists, SS. Mathew and Mark, use the word tv Xa #rwcc ( . So that a comparison of the above 
references with *those belonging to the present article, will prove to demonstration that the bread 
was only blessed by giving thanks over it, — a circumstance indicative of that action not being directed 
to the bread. The Papists contend, that at the utterance of the blessing, the elements receive a 
change, and quote 1 Sam. ix. 13, as a proof of it. Here, because the word i{ bless" is construed with 
the meat of the feast, it must, forsooth, receive some strange nature and substance, whereas Samuel 
did not pray for any change in the meat, but that it might be wholesome to the guests. 

fAmbrose affirms, that, through blessing, the nature of the elements is changed, i. e. not the 
matte?" of bread and wine ; but that what was before common is by that means ordained for a heavenly 
use. 

JWard repeats Gregory Martin's quotations from some of the Fathers, in support of the doctrine 
of §transubstantiation. Irenaeus, he says, thus expounds : " the bread over which thanks are given, 
that is, which by the word of prayer and thanksgiving is made a consecrated meat, the flesh and 
blood of Christ :" and St. Basil and St. Chrysostom, in their liturgies, " bless, O Lord, the sacred 
bread ;" and " bless, O Lord, the sacred cup ; changing it by thy holy spirit." In these passages, 
Ward observes, " are signified the consecration and transmutation thereof (scil. of bread and wine) 
into the body and blood of Christ." Such is the language of the Popish clergy of the present day, 
who hold that the consecration entirely consists in the utterance, or, as ||Fulke quaintly expresses it, in 
" the magicall murmuration" of the words, hoc est Corpus Meum, (which are words neither of prayer 
nor thanksgiving,) over the bread by a priest, with the intent of consecrating. But by the explana- 
tions set forth in the above quotations, Protestants are willing to abide, as no meaning different from 
what they ascribe to them is thence deducible. They agree with the Greek liturgies, that the crea- 
tures of bread and wine are, by the operation of the divine spirit, changed into the body and blood of 
Christ, after a divine and spiritual manner ; and with Irenaeus, that prayer and thanksgiving effect this 
blessing. 

But as Irenaeus's, Basil's, and Chrysostom's writings are adduced by Ward as advocating the doctrine 
of transubstantiation, it shall be proved, that their sentiments on the Eucharist have been grossly mis- 
represented, waving all reference to the passages already cited ; and that they did not understand the 
matter differently from the Church of England at this day. Those great luminaries of the primitive 
Church, who must be deemed the best expounders of their own thoughts, it is maintained, never 
understood the change that took place in the Eucharist to signify the gross, corporeal presence of 
Christ; nor have .they, as will presently appear, left room for either doubt or conjecture on this 
subject in particular. 

First, Irenasus held no such opinion as that attributed to him by Ward ; for if he did, he would 

* See column Original Greek, numbers 8 and 9. f Lib. 3. c. 5. de Sacram. 

% Errata, page 41. 

§ Ward uses the words " real presence" as if Protestants denied Christ's being really present in the sacrament, after a 
spiritual manner. They deny, indeed, that he is present (sensualiter) so as to be the object of the senses. 

|| Defenfe of the true Translations of the Holie Scriptures. Ch. xvii. §. 5. p. 437- 



6 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



not have considered the elements, in the Eucharist, to have retained, like other food, their nutritive 
properties. His words are, §" When, therefore, the cup which is mixed, and the bread which is 
made, receives the word of God, and the Eucharist becomes the body of Christ, and from them 
the substance of our bodies is increased, and acquires consistence, fyc." 

Next ; Basil, it is equally clear, held no such opinion, as in his comments on the xxxivth Psalm, 
v. 8th. (the xxxiii. in the original) he thus expresses himself. *"We have often observed that the opera- 
tions of the mind are called by the same names as those of the outzvard members. But as our Lord 
is the true bread, and his flesh is the true meat, it is necessary that the delightful pleasure which we 
receive from that Bread, should be conveyed to us by our tasting it spiritually." Lastly : St. 
Chrysostom's declaration against the popish doctrine is even more pointedly direct. It is this; f" But 
what he calls bread is his saving doctrines (alluding to where Christ calls himself the bread of life), 
and the faith in him and his body : for both strengthen the mind." And in another part of his 
works, the same Father is no less explicit on this subject. J*' Since, therefore, the Word says, this 
is my body : let us both obey and believe, and look upon it with the eyes of the understanding, or 
spirit. For, what Christ delivered has nothing to do with the senses : but although joined with 
sensible objects, all is spiritual. Thus in baptism, also, &c." The reader must, on a perusal of 
these passages, be convinced that Ward's -statement is intended to deceive, and that he deservedly 
forfeits all .pretensions to candour and truth ; as the Fathers, whose authority he quotes, instead of 
countenancing, condemn, as far as their testimony goes, the doctrine of transubstantiation. 

And here it may not be impertinent to remark, that the last quotation made from St. Chrysostom's 
works happens to be one that exhibits as strong an instance of literary imposture as any that disgraces 
the writings of popish authors, either ancient or modern. Mr. Fletcher, in his remarks on the 
Bishop of Durham's ^pamphlet, not being able to establish his positions with all that fulness of evi- 
dence, which should ever accompany controverted points, betakes himself to the vile contrivance of 
mutilating the text to effect that purpose. As he evidently acted on the detestable principle, that " the 
end justifies the means;" it is, to be sure, not surprising, that he has not been scrupulous as to the 
mode of attaining it. He omits the sentences marked in italics in the above quotation from Chrysos- 
tom's Homilies, on which the Father's meaning principally rests, and thus gives a new turn to the 
sense of the passage, and widely different from that intended. This scandalous attempt to impose on 
the public has, by the judicious research of ||Mr. Le Mesurier, been detected and reprobated, as it 

$ 'OwoIe Bt xxi to xtga.fji.oov iro[r,gtov nxi o ytyovwi; agroi; vn&yttm tov Xoyor ts 6eB, xai ymrxt i ei/^agifia to ooo[j.x Xfrtf, tx 
t3twv h aviici xxi o-wir«Ta< h ra cra^xo; i/^wv 'vnorouns, &C. lib. 5, C. 2, p. 396, advers. haeres. 

* XloXhxyi} ■teivifywMp.vt, oti T<w; ij-uQn y.O\i<nv tftUvopA)S-a.i T>?; Yfp^n; "irgoffxyogevowreii <tvva.p»<;, ~Litti Je «§to; snv aXtjfiiw; Kvgws h[Mt, 
km vi tragi avTX aM^ns tft @puo~is, avax/rj T»iv SjSohjv ti? evlpgoavi/r)<; re agre 5ia ytvcrta^ hpi* NOHTHS tfymiu&xt. Basil. Oper. Tom. i. 
p. 148. 

+ ApTov Je »)tcw ret Soyfixrct Xtyn iiixvba rx aiorripia, xat ri\t w»s*»» tjjv et? avrov, i) to atipct to lavre. Afiforefot yctg vivgoi tjjk Yv^^y. 
Chrys. Oper. Tom. viii. p. 270. 

I Esrti ow Xoyoq tpnoi, rata Efi to aapa. y.e, xcu wsl9ay*E0*, xai WtvofAs*, xai NOHTOIZ AYTO BAEIIfJMEN 0*®AAM0I2. 
•Oi/Sev yx;> euffbrm vrx^SuKtv x&'f° s > aWi ' «woVo*? yuv m^xy^xuiy IIANTA Si NOHTA. Chrys. Horn, in Mat. Ixxxii, §. 4. 
p. 787- 

§ Grounds on which the Church of England separated from the Church of Rome, reconsidered. 
j| See his admirable Treatise on the doctrine of the Eucharist, page 122. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN ISM! 



t 



should. It is, indeed, a fact of that description which needs but be known to be reprobated ; and 
every person who regards fairness and good faith, in cases of such moment, must participate in 
that gentleman's manly and indignant feelings upon this subject* 



Book. Ch.Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


1 | 
Rhemish Version. Beza's Latin Text Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6n 


Acts iii. 21. . 




quern oportet 

quidem 
coelum susci- 
pere. 


whom Heaven 
truly must re- 
ceive. 


quern oportet 
ccelo capi. 


*whom Heaven 
must con tain. 


whom Heaven, 
must receive (10) 



Marked thus-* altered io the -present reading A. D. 1611.. 



10. Jsf gpaVOV, &c. Doctor Milner's opinion coincides with Ward's, that this text has rela- 
tion to Christ's presence on the altar, and that it has been translated, \\" quern oportet Ccelo capi" to favour 
the Protestant system. This remark, as it is pointed at the Protestants of the present day, is extremely 
illiberal. He might as well arraign them of all the errors into which their excessive zeal led Luther, 
Calvin, and others, who bore a distinguished part in the Reformation. Admitting Beza to be wrong 
in his translation of the passage » &c. and that the English, which is the same in both Protestant 
and Popish Bibles, is right ; still it is not by these the point at issue would be determined, but by the 
Greek. But in what does this imputed error in Beza's translation consist ? Why, in the resolution 
of an active into a passive verb, which may be done, as every Latinist knows, without at all affecting 
the sense. It would be idle to ask Doctor Milner, who so strenuously defends all Ward's positions, 
but. let the Question be put to any ingenuous and well-informed mind, whether this passage, taken 
separately, or in connection with what precedes and- follows it, either favours or disfavours the doc- 
trine of transubstantiation ? St. Peter hadnothing of the kind in view. Gregory Nazianzen, speaking 
of Christ's being contained in Heaven, saySj f" For he must reign until then, and be received in 
" Heaven until the times of the restitution." And Chrysostom, to whom Ward so confidently appeals, 
as advocating this monstrous doctrine, in saying, J" That Christ ascending into Heaven, both left us. 
his flesh, and yet ascending hath the same;" only speaks of the ineffable manner in which Christ is 
spiritually present, although corporeally absent. That this is the case, and that Ward has erroneously 
interpreted the passage just cited, will further appear, by. the following one from the same Father's 
writings. We may see the people dyed, and made red, with the precious blood of Christ, which 
as it is not with the eye of the body, but with the eye of faith, so is Christ that is corporeally pre- 
sent in Heaven, spiritually present unto the faith of the worthy receiver." 

■ To what has been already said; on , this article, , it may not be superfluous to add that which Ward 



|] See column, f Beza's Latin Text.' 

Serm. Secund. de fiiio. 
$ Horn. 2. ad popul. Antioch. h Lib. 3. de Sacerdotio, 



8 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



would lead his reader to suppose might be converted into a query next to being unanswerable. *" If," 
says he, " we should ask Protestants, whether he was also in Heaven, when he appeared to Saul going 
to Damascus ; or whether he can be both in Heaven and with his Church on earth, to the end of 
the world, as he promised ; perhaps, by this doctrine of theirs, they would be put to a stand." That this 
assumption is founded in ignorance, or something worse, will appear by stating St. Luke's narrative to 
which Ward alludes, where not a word of Christ's personal, or corporeal presence is even once 
mentioned, t" And as he (viz. St. Paul) journeyed, he came near Damascus : and suddenly there 
shined round about him a light from Heaven, &c." and he " heard a voice, &c." The light and 
voice only presented themselves to his senses ; Christ had at that time ascended into Heaven, and 
will thence descend at the last day. This, not less than his promise to be with his Church to 
the end of the world, in the Person of the Comforter, or Holy Spirit, who would +' guide it into all 
truth,' clearly proves his residence on earth to be only a spiritual one. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1668. 


K.James'sBibleiGu 


Jeremiah xi. 
19- 


avrx. 

Heb. nrvntrj 
inn 1 ?! \v 


mittamus lig- 
num in pa- 
nem ejus. 

Pagninus 
renders it, — 
Corrumpa- 
mus cibum 
veneno. 


let us cast wood 
upon his bread. 


A. Mont, cor- 
rumpamus lig- 
num in pane 
ejus. 


let us destroy 
the tree with 
the fruit there- 
of. 


let us destroy the 
tree with the fruit 
thereof. (11) 



11. EjU.baAtojU.SV. The intelligent reader is referred by Doctor Milner to Ward's notes on 
this text, (being one of the three he alludes to,) as sufficient to convince him, that the Prophet Jere- 
miah's meaning is such, as is there stated : at least so much may be inferred from what he says in his 
§Inquiry. This certainly is vouching more for Ward, than could be said of any individual since the 
days of Jeremiah ; when, if at all, the phrase he made use of, was understood. But what says this 
favourite expositor of Doctor M. ? Why, that St. Hierom considered the passage to have a prophetical 
allusion to Christ's ||" body in the blessed sacrament;" and that St. Paul, a still higher authority, in 
his first epistle to the % Corinthians, called his body, bread. " So that, both in the Prophet and the 
Apostle, his bread and his body is all one." Now, it may be here observed, that the Father's 
exposition is both forced and unnatural, and, what is remarkable, uncommonly brief; indeed, this very 
circumstance demonstrates, as strongly as any thing can, the difficulty he found in interpreting the 
passage. And, as to the Apostle, if the intelligent reader will attentively weigh his words, he will 
discover as strong grounds for supposing, that the sacramental bread, the U (which, St. Paul says, 
is emblematical of the * many ' disciples constituting one Christian society), is there stated by him to 

* Errata, page 41. f Acts ix. 3. and 4. also xxii. 6 and 7. % St. John xvi. 13. 

I Page 345, note 3. || Errata, page 41. % C. 10. v. 16 and 17. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OP THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



represent his own body, as that of Christ. The Apostle's meaning, then, which is equally clear and, 
explicit, is no elucidation of the Prophet's allusion, which is in itself obscure ; not affording a sha- 
dow of support to that creature of the brain, — the doctrine of transubstantiation. 

lanbn yy nJTntW. The Latin version of this phrase is given in the columns as it stands 
in the Vulgate, and in the Bibles of Pagninus and Arias Montanus. The interpretations also, it has 
given rise to, are still more various. According to some ; ' let us destroy him with wood instead of 
bread ; i. e. let us famish him in a close prison, or in the stocks, &c.' According to others ; ' let us 
mix poison with his meat ; or starve him ; or beat him,' (baculos gustet). They, however, all bear to 
this one point; let us, some way or other, put an end to the prophet and his prophecy: " let us/' to 
use his own words, "cut him off from the land of the living, that his name may be no more remem- 
bered." In this figurative manner the prophet expressed himself, when he treated of the schemes 
laid for his destruction by the men of Anathoth, who were offended at his prophesying such sharp 
things against Judah. 

Such is the clear and literal interpretation adopted by the Church of England, and which is so 
well expressed by her translators, viz. "Let us destroy the tree with the fruit thereof." Very different 
is the exposition borrowed by Ward, according to which he tortures the sense of scripture, solely that 
he may accommodate it to his particular purpose. Where Jerome expounds, "let us put the cross upon 
his bread," Ward considers it to mean " upon his very natural body that hung on the cross." Jerome's 
interpretation has been already stated to be forced and unnatural ; nor, indeed, is Ward's application of 
it less so ; as, evidently, the cross was not put upon Christ, but Christ was put upon the cross. It is 
still a wilder conjecture to apply it to the sacrament, which Papists call bread; and yet, according to 
the Popish notion, is not bread! 

It is rather questionable, whether Jerome consulted the Hebrew text or not, as he does not point 
out, in his usual way, in what respect it and the Septuagint Greek differ. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6u 


Genesis xiv. 


Kas< MeX^urehy. 
nA(Kini) wget/j 

&c. 


At vero Mel- 
chesidech rex 
Salem, profe- 
renspanemei 
vinum, erat 
enim Sacer- 
dos&c.PAGN. 
reads, ' pro 
tulit,&c.'and 
again, 'e/ipse 
erat.' 


But Melchesi- 
dech, the king 
ofSalem, 'bring- 
ing forth' bread 
and wine, ' for 
he was the priest 
&c. 


A. M. for 
SVYin 
gives eduxit 


'broughtforth,' 
&c. 
' and,' &c. 


And Melchize- 
dek, king of Sa- 
lem, ' brought 
forth' bread and 
wine; ' and' he 
was priest of the 
most high God. 

(12) 



* That followed by the Protestant Translators seems to be this : " dejiciamus arborem cum fructu suo. Phrasis Ytf, &c. de 
dejectione et extirpatione arborum, Deut. xx. lg. accipitur." Pol. Anliot. in loc. 

C 



10 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



12. B%YlVSy)C£ TQV Ctf)7QV,8ic. * Ward observes, " if Protestants should grant Melchise- 
dek's typical sacrifice of bread and wine, then would follow also a sacrifice of the New Testa- 
ment." Protestants will not, nor indeed should Papists, contravene the opinion of some of the 
most eminent of the Fathers, who, in treating of Melchisedek's oblation of bread and wine, spoke 
of it as a sacrifice of thanksgiving only. It carries an absurdity on the face of it, to say, that the 
Popish sacrifice, which is neither bread nor wine, resembles that of Melchisedek, which consisted 
of both. 

The Hebrew verb \nN^in\ which occurs in the book of -^Judges^ and which is but a different 
inflexion of that under consideration, evidently does not import sacrifice ; although there 
Gideon bade the angel tarry, until he brought him a gift, or oblation, from his house. Pagninus^ 
renders it et educam, and this version is confirmed by Montanus. % Bonfrerius, one of Pole's sacred 
critics, thus interprets the act : " hoc tantum animo fuit Gideon, ut hospiti cibum apponeret."' 
Bishop Patrick subscribes to this opinion. It is likewise rendered, by the same Greek word, (viz. 
jIoic-w) in the Ixx. as the other. So that if it were exclusively confined to this signification, that, 
whatever is brought forth is a sacrifice; there would be more sacrifices than ever God ordained. 
Now as to N^tn in the present text, Montanus translates it, eduxit, which seems to be its exact 
meaning. § Ambrose, whom Pagninus follows, uses the word protuliL || Augustin, ^[ Cyprian, and 
the vulgar Latin, read proferens. ** Josephus says, in his remarks on the passage, " ministravit 
exercitui xenia." And, lastly, ffJerome, not offering any opinion of his own, merely states the 
judgment of others ; " Melchisedek victori Abraham obviam processerit, et in refectionem, tarn 
ipsius, quam pugnatorum ipsius, panes vinumque protulerit." Hence we may conclude, that 
Melchisedek's bringing forth bread and wine to Abraham, was purely an act of hospitality, and 
involved no one consideration, as Popish expositors- would fain have it,, of the sacerdotal office. 
If it did,.it is natural to suppose, that a word, somehow expressive of the sacrifice, would have 
been adopted by Moses, instead of one, which bears no relation to it whatever. But were the above- 
mentioned interpreters, and all others, to expound the bringing forth bread and wine, as pertaining 
to the priesthood; to them, the individual authority of St. Paul may be opposed. In his epistle to 
the XX Romans, and particularly in that to the §§Hebrews,. he fully demonstrates in what HHsense 
Christ is to be considered as " a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedek ;" that he is not so 
by offering himself for evej- in behalf of his people, but by interceding for them always. But, 
beside that St. Paul is sufficiently explanatory in the passages alluded to, as to the nature of the 
priesthood ; it cannot be thought of for a moment, that he, under the immediate impulse of the 
divine spirit, would omit to mention so striking a circumstance as a sacrifice of bread and 
wine 5 .particularly when he was relating the resemblances, which he discovered Melchisedek bore 
to Christ. 

Ward closes this article with, a. censure on the Protestant Translators, for having rendered the 

* Errata, page 41. | c. 6. v-. 18. + Vid. Eoli Synopsin in Joe. 

§ De myster. initiancL || De tit. xxxiii. Psal. f Bp. ad Ccecik, ** Vid. Scholas. Histoiv c. 64. 

-ft Ep. ad Evagr. it C. 8. \,34. § C. 7. and c. 10. v. 12, 13, 14* TT Vid. Macknight in loc. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 161 i. 



11 



Hebrew particle (i) and, "in this place, when in other places they translate it, (enim) for." It is not 
possible to conceive a weaker or more absurd observation than this. Vau certainly is sometimes 
used as a causal, (viz. for, because,) and sometimes as a copulative conjunction, but never has any 
force of itself to create either signification, since it must be expounded according to the sense 
of the passage where it occurs. A. Montanus, whose authority should not be rejected, 
by the Popish clergy, here too, follows the reading of Pagninus. scil, et. In the epistles 
already referred to, Cyprian reads thus, " fuit autem sacerdos :" and Jerome, erat autem sacerdos, &c. 
" and he was the priest." Notwithstanding this agreement, their exposition, in particular, is 
quoted by Ward. 

Insulated references to the voluminous works of the Fathers are well calculated to mislead, 
and when the nature of these, and others still more specious, which may be frequently met with 
in the Errata, is considered, it will argue no want of charity to say, that they have been made 
with that intention. The effect, however, will be the same, whether the case be so, or not ; as not 
one, in one hundred, of the Popish Clergy, into whose hands Ward's book has fallen, will either con- 
sult the originals themselves, or question the accuracy of his selections. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version . 


Beza's Latin TextjBps. Bible, 1568. 


K. James'sBible i6ri 


Proverbs 
ix. 5. 


Kelt 9TIETE owv ot 
entgctaoi vfiiv. 
Heb. TODD ; 


. . .et bibite, 
vinum quod 
miscui vobis 
Pagn. gives 
only, ' mis- 
cui.' 


and drink the 
wine which I 
have mingled 
for you. 


A. M. 

in vino, 


* bibite 
miscui' 


and drink the 
wine which I 
have *' drawn. 


and drink of the 
wine which I 
have ' mingled.' 

(13) 


Proverbs 
ix. 2. 


T«, exigxcrtv tic 
Heb. rODD 


Immolavit 
victimas 
suas, mis- 
cuit vinum. 
Pagn. victi- 
mam suam. 


. . . She hath 
immolated her 
hosts, she hath 
mingled her 
wine. 






. . . She hath 
* ' drawn ' her 
wine. 

I 


She hath killed 
her beasts ; she 
hath ' mingled ' 
her wine; &c. 

(14) 



Marked thus * were altered to their present reading A, D. 16'] 1 . 



13. 14. VDDO. KSJCSpctKOL, On the texts corresponding with these numbers, J Ward ob- 
serves; that " Protestants counting the mingling of water and wine in the chalice an idle cere- 
" mony, frame their translation accordingly." This is a most gross misrepresentation, even as it 
regards the first translators of the Protestant Bible, who never understood these texts as any way 
prophetical of the Lord's Supper; but more particularly as it relates to those of l6ll, whose trans- 
lation is nearly the same with the Popish one. Water, it is not denied, was used in the primitive 
church, in the celebration of the Eucharist ; but such a custom is not warranted by scripture, 
indeed, it is not even hinted at there, while express mention is made of t " the fruit of the vine." 

^ Errata, page 43. f Mat. c. xxvi. v. 2g. Mark, c. siv. v. 25. and Luke, c. xxii. v. 18. 

C -2 



12 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 

Cyprian condemned the practice as unscriptural, and sharply reproved those heretics in his time, 
who styled themselves Aquarii, because they admitted the use of water in the administration 
of this sacrament. His words are : * '".if it be not lawful to loose any one of the least command- 
ments of Christ, how much more is it unlawful to break so great and so weighty a one, which so 
very nearly relates to the sacrament of our Lord's passion, and of our redemption ; or by any 
human institution to change it into that which is quite different from the divine institution." 
f Jerome says, " in the type of his blood, he offered not water but wine" Yet what they and all 
others have advanced on the subject, is of little worth, compared with the authority of the Holy 
Scriptures. According to these, the words in the text are nowise typical, as Ward contends, <J of 
our Lord's sacrifice of the immolated host of bread and wine :" but more plainly intimate the many 
blessings wisdom prepared for men, if they would but make a right use of them. 

Wisdom mingled her wine, &c. preparatory to the banquet, and in alluring men to partake of 
it, she would, as has been most pertinently ^observed, have rather added what would have made it 
delicious, such as spices or honey,. &c. than water, which would but weaken it and make it both 
tasteless and unpalatable. But, besides, the same Hebrew word ^Dftb is used by || Isaiah, in a 
way that determines its sense here. The prophet is denouncing woe against drunkards, " and men 
of strength to mingle (sechar) strong drink :" so that the mixture could not have been with water, 
but some ingredient that would make it still more intoxicating. 

As to the first clause of the verse, where wisdom is spoken of as having « killed her beasts ;." 
it would be desirable to know, to what part of the sacrament Papists would make such a pro- 
cedure applicable. Ward has thought proper, and,, no doubt, on very sufficient grounds, to pass 
it by without making any particular observation. 

It is well worthy of remark, that the words for you, which are extremely significant, occur 
in the ^[Rhemish translation, although there is no corresponding word in the Hebrew to warrant 
their adoption. Thus would the Rhemists have unwittingly furnished an additional argument 
against the exclusion of the laity's communicating in both kinds; if their interpretation of the 
passage could be admitted. 

To conclude, then : The clearest exposition that can be given is this ; — that Solomon had a 
general view of some great blessing that should befal mankind, in the person of the Messiah, 
but not a distinct revelation of any changes, or corruptions, that were to arise in the Christian 
Church. 

* Ep. 63. ad Cqec'iI. \ In typo sanguinis sui, non obtulit aquam, sed vinum, Advers. Jov. Tom. 4. p. 198. 

+ Vid. Pol, Annot. in loc. and Bishop Patrick on the O. T. 
§ According to Parkhurst, -j Da implies " wine mixed with the lees, turbid and highly intoxicating." 
U C..5. v. 22.. 1 -See column Rhemish Translation. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 161 1. 



13 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBible 1611 


1 Cor. xi. 27- 


tod ugtov rwrov, 
H trim to 7tot>)- 
gKHi to Kx^ta 

Kt/£ia. 


Itaque 
quicumque 
manducave- 

rit pan em 
hunc, vel bi- 
berit calicem 
Domini in 
digne, &c. 


Therefore, 
whosoever 
shall eat this 
bread, or ch ink 
the chalice ol 
our Lord un- 
worthily, &c. 


Itaq. quisquis 
ederit panem 
hunc, aut bibe- 
rit hoc pocu- 
lum Dominiin- 
digne, reus te- 
tiebitur corpo- 
ris et sanguinis 
Domini. 

> 


Wherefore, 
whosoever 
shall eat this 
bread,cm^drink 
this cup, &c. 


Wherefore, who- 
soever shall eat 
this bread, ' and'' 
drink this cup of 
the Lord, unwor- 
thily, shall be 
guilty of the 
body and blood 
of the Lord. 

(15) 



15. Yj 7TIVY)* This is another of the texts, as translated in the common English Testa- 
ment, that Doetor Milner, not less than Ward, looks on as a corruption. * " Though 
small to the eye, it is," observes the former, " great as to the sense, inasmuch as it spoils a 
scriptural argument in favour of the Catholic doctrine, concerning the body and blood of 
Christ being both received under either kind." Undoubtedly. This alleged corruption of » being 
translated and, does invalidate every argument that can be adduced in support of the practice of 
denying the cup to the laity. But, if it be allowed, that scripture is the best interpreter of 
scripture, the allegation is false. And here, for the purpose of proving it to be so, it may not be 
irrelevant to apply Tertullian's f rule of determining the sense of the passages, which are few, by 
that of the many. 

That », then, is properly rendered by and, will appear on referring to the parallel texts of 
+Luke and §Matthew ; for what is ,« in the former, is **» in the latter : so that as two distinct ques- 
tions are put, the use of « in a disjunctive sense is forbidden ; which double use of » is surely not 
more unaccountable than that of the || particle vau in the Hebrew language. In addition to this, it 
should be observed that, in the next verse but one, it is H takw KAI m*m, which determines the sense 
of mot to be disjunctive. The **copulative in the verse, which immediately precedes, as well as 
that, f | which immediately follows, has the same force. 

But, admitting the use of the disjunctive particle ' or,' still it would not answer Doctor 
Milner's end, as the neglect of either the one or the other of the two things proposed, would not 
hence follow. For instance, the communicant is told, that punishment will be the consequence 
of an unworthy reception of either the bread or the wine; if he offend in the one particular, the 
use of 'or' does not most remotely imply that the other maybe entirely dispensed with: it 
rather demonstrates that both elements are to be held in equal reverence. Rosenmuller's comment 
on the passage is as satisfactory as it is concise : " As to the particle „," he says, " it is without 
" reason that the Papists rely upon it, as shewing that both species are not absolutely necessary. 

* Inquiry, page 346. f " Oportet secundum plura hitelligi pauciora." J C. xx. v. 2. § C. xxi. v. 23. 

|] See remarks on number 12. «J[ i Cor. c. xi. v. 2g. 

. ** oe-ajtis y«g'.«v srSum rot k^qv tstov, KAI to wt%$0i tsto ttojjte. f| • 'srw sx ts ogtt) writer**, K.AI m tu mrn^m itmru. 



14 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



For, first, there is a variety of reading (as some read *«») ; and, also, it is common with the 
Greek translators of the Old Testament to put x*» for », as in *Genesis. Besides this, any one 
of the Corinthians might take the cup unworthily, as by drinking to intoxication, although in 
eating no indecency had been committed." After this view of the subject, will Doctor Milner 
be bold enough to affirm, that he can derive any argument from scripture to uphold what he calls 
a " catholic doctrine," but what is, in reality, only an emanation from the doctrine of tran- 
substantiation? 

What the usage of the church has been, in this particular, during the first twelve centuries, 
can be incontestably proved from the earliest writers. Cyprian, in his epistle to Czecilius, which 
has been already spoken of, is decidedly against the Pqpish distinction ; and fChrysostom is not 
less so, where he expressly says, that there is no difference between the priest and the laity, " as 
in the participation of the divine mysteries ; for we are all admitted to them alike." And, im- 
mediately after, J" But to all one body is tendered, to all one cup :" which, he says, was not the 
case under the old law, where the people were denied a participation of that of which the priest 
partook. 

There is even an admission on record, made A. D. 1414, by the Council of Constance, by 
which the Popish innovation was first established, " that Christ instituted this sacrament in both 
kinds, and that the primitive Christians received in both kinds :" and this admission was sub- 
sequently repeated by the ^Council of Trent. But, besides, the express injunction of Christ, as 
related by j|St. Matthew, after He gave the cup to the Apostles, was, " drink ye all of it ;" and 
*[St. Mark says, " they all drank of it," when he presented the cup. All, laity as well as clergy, 
are desired to drink the cup **" for the remission of sins." 

Ward lays great stress on that text of jySt. Luke, where Christ is only related to have 
broken bread before his ascension. But, if no mention be made of the wine, it arises from the 
concise way in which St. Luke expresses himself ; for as the terms bread and -wine are in a manner 
correlative, the mention of one sufficed. However this be, neither the text in question, nor 
those others pointed out by him, in the XX Acts, authorises the practice of the Popish Church. 

The diversity of reading to be met with in the oldest Greek copies, of which Rosenmiiller 
speaks, is a well attested fact, and a further corroboration of the Protestant translation of « 
being correct. §§Griesbacb, who has, with most astonishing pains, collated all the various Greek 
MSS. which are extant, presents his reader with as many as thirteen, exclusive of the Alexandrine 
and Claromontane, which have Add to this, that in the versions of the Syriac, Arabic, 
and JEthiopic MSS. the reading is the same ; and that the learned |||] Wolff enumerates no fewer 
than thirty of the oldest copies, even of the Vulgate, from 1462 to 1569, in which " was 
translated " et." 

* C. iii. v. 22. Syramachus habet weXom itwitpv, alii mu iromgov. Rosenmiiller, vol. iv. p. 151. 
■f aov, aim ofiroXavoit tm tpgiKTUv ^ypijiav. 'O/xoia; yx% TIANTES afi!fy«8fls tu* clvtuiv. Tom X. p. 560. 
X oKko. TIAXIN h o-wf«s 9T£oxEiTai, xeti nSygioi h. Chrys. Ibid. § Paol. Hist. lib. iii. p. 485. 

|| C. xxvi. v. 27^ *5 C. xiv. v. 23. ** Mat. c. xxvi. V. 28. ft c - xxI *« v. 30. 

ti-C ii. v. 42. and c. 20. v«7. Nov. Test. Grxc. vol. ii. p. 265. U|| " -€urae Philol." Vol. iii. p. 492. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 15 

It now only remains to notice a very futile objection of Ward. His words are, " For 
whole Christ is really present, under either kind, as Protestants themselves have confessed." He 
then introduces Luther, on the authority of Hospinian (a Protestant writer too), as subscribing 
to the opinion, — " that it is not needful to give both kinds." To say nothing of this opinion, 
which was retracted by the Lutheran church, inasmuch as the cup was restored by it to the laity, it 
argues great folly to arraign the Protestants of the present day of the errors into which their 
ancestors fell before the articles of their religion obtained a settled and determinate shape. On 
this principle, it might as well be said, that because Calvin caused Servetus to be burned ; or that 
because Cranmer, the chief promoter of the Reformation in England, brought an Anabaptist to 
the stake; their followers, the present race of Protestants, should consequently persecute those 
who differ from them in religious principles. 



SECTION III— THE BLESSED SACRAMENT AND THE ALTAR. 



Book.Ch.Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6n 


lCor. ix. 13. 


Tat. 


et qui altari 
cleserviunt 
cum altari 
participant. 


and they that 
serve the ' al- 
tar' participate 
with the ' al- 
tar.' 


et qui altari as- 
sident cum al- 
tari participant 

MONTANUS 

translates c as- 
sidentes ' corn- 
participant. 


and they which 
wait at the 
* temple are par- 
takers with the 
'altar.' 


and they which 
wait at the ' al- 
tar' are partakers 
with the * altar.' 

(16) 


1 Cor. x. 18. 




altaris 


of the altar 


altaris. 


*of the' temple 1 


of the 'altar.'(17) 



Marked thus>* were altered to their present reading A.D. 1611. 



16. 17- 01 TCL ISgCt Spyct%0[J,SVOl 9 &c. These words, which occur in the first clause 
of the verse, contain an allusion to the Levites, who performed sacred offices ; and irgmfyvoms, 
which is found in the last clause, denotes the continual attendance at the altar, and clearly de- 
signates the service, of the priest. In the next verse, the Apostle completes the simile, by 
observing, " that they wliich preach the gospel, should live of the gospel." Where, then, are 
the grounds the Romanists go on for setting up an altar ; and without an altar will they talk of 
sacrifice ? 

" But," remarks tWard, " because Protestants will have only a communion of bread and 
wine, or a supper and no sacrifice ; therefore they call it table only, and abhor the word altar, 
as papistical." A more infamous calumny has not been uttered against the Church of England, 



X Errata, page 43. 



16 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



which believes, as is laid down by the Apostles, that the sacrament of the Lord's Supper is the 
communion of the body and blood of Christ. And as to the word altar, wherever it occurs 
in scripture, it signifies the altars of the Jews or the Gentiles, and never the communion table. 
Sometimes, in the Old Testament, the altar is called a table ; but the table is no where called an 
altar in the New Testament; as will appear on a comparison of the epistle to the Hebrews with 
that to the Corinthians. So that, although the *Prophet called the Lord's altar, his table ; and 
although some of the Fathers occasionally denominated the table an altar ; it is not sufficient rea- 
son for calling it either indifferently, under the new dispensation, or for violating a distinction so 
strictly observed by St. Paul. It is certain, that, in his epistle to the -{"Hebrews, he does not mean 
by the use of the word Stwar^x (which he applies in a figurative sense, putting the altar for the 
sacrifice) a carnal sacrifice, since he afterwards explains the nature of it to be that of " praise." 



Book Ch.Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 15G8. 


K.James'sBible 1611 


Dan. xiv. 
12. 17. 20. 




mensam 


table 




Apochryphal 


Apocryphal. (18) 



18. The texts belonging to this number are Apocryphal. 



SECTION IV. — PRIESTS, PRIESTHOOD, AND HOLY ORDERS. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's LatinText 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBible iGn 


Acts xv. 2. 




Presbyteros 


priests 


Presbyteros. 


< Elders' 


'Elders.' (19) 


Tit. i. 5. 


Kara. noKiv 


et constituas 
per civitates 
Presbyteros. 


and should or- 
dain ' priests' 
by cities. 


et constituas 
oppidatim (A. 
M. per civita- 
tem) presbyte- 
ros. 


< Elders' 


and ordain ' El- 
ders' in every 
city. (20) 



19. 20. HgeVpVTegSt;, Ward says ; " Our pretended Reformers never so much as once 
name priest, unless when mention is made of the priests of the Jews, or the priests of the Gen- 
tiles." Protestants do not object to the word 'priest' in respect of its etymology, as appears 
from the repeated mention of it in their Book of Common Prayer, in those parts, where the 
minister is said to discharge the priestly offices, of (declaratory) absolution, of consecration, &c. 
but in respect of its use and general signification. So that, if their translators call the sacrificers 
of the Old Testament, and also of the Gentiles, priests, according to the common" acceptation of 

* Malachi, c. i. v. 7. f C. xiii. v. IO. % Senior— qui ecclesiae praeest. Scap. Lex. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN lQl% 



17 



the term, it is in conformity to the language of scripture, which calls them by one name *tD>jn:>, 
scil. so, also, because the ministers of the New Testament, while they receive different 

appellations, are never denominated or priests ; they very properly adhered to the same rule, 
by naming them Elders. 

" But," continues Ward, " Protestants leave the ecclesiastical use of the word vge^vre^t for 
the original signification." Considering the tone in which this observation is made, it amounts, 
at least, to an indirect admission that ' priest' is not the literal translation of the Greek word. The 
legitimate meaning of the term is Elder or Elderman, a name, in the first age of the Church, 
given to bishops, as appears from the | Acts ; where the persons, called elders, in one place, are, 
in another place, called bishops. The same may be observed in St. Paul's :j;Epistle to Titus. Aud 
^Ignatius styles the Apostles, the 'Presbytery' of the Church. If, therefore, a change in the 
government of the church, which existing circumstances required, took place after the Apostolic 
age, whereby those designated by the title n^w^o, became subordinate to those styled Ewwxotwi ; 
that gives no colour whatever for rendering the former term f priests,' on the ground of a supposed 
similarity between the governing orders of the Jewish and Christian Churches. 

Again; on referring to the Vulgate, it will be there found, that in the same || verse the 
reading is seniores, and consenior. These terms are rendered, in some editions of the Rhemish 
New Testament, 'seniors,' and * fellow-senior;' and, in others, 'ancients,' and ' ancient.' In a 
succeeding number, other instances of a similar kind will be pointed out. ^[Chrysostom, too, 
whose authority should lead to a decision on the subject, pronounces directly against the popish 
signification of the term w^vre^'s. His words are extremely apposite, and well entitled to the 
reader's attention: oyton "ieRea, «wws w» ysyt^orx. He says, that the term signifies, " not a p?iest t 
but a grave, aucient man." Others of the Fathers express themselves to the same effect. And 
**Beza affirms they were called, " Presbyteri vel seniores, turn propter retatem, turn propter 
judicium, quod de ipsis facit ecclesia." 

As the popish doctors contend that n^vr^ implies ' priest,' ■\-\%gta^vr^cc must consequently imply 
* priestess :' and if so, it would be desirable to know how they account for her non-attendance at 
the popish altar. 

JJWard says that the English divines, and among them Cranmer himself, affirmed, that "election, 
without consecration, was sufficient to make a Priest or a Bishop." This impudent assertion he 
grounds on the early version of x £ V 0TQ w ra * T£ ?5 " ordained by election" and because Whitaker, SutclifFe, 
&c. who were not strictly writers in defence of the Church of England, held such language. But a 
brief statement of the real principles on which ordination in the English Church is founded, will best 
disprove such a charge. " Parliament," says Archbishop Bramhall, " has no operative power to 
make those priests who want the essentials of priesthood, but a receptive power to receive such for 
true Priests, who are ordained according to ike institution of Christ." 

* Tayl. Concord. Heb. et Trommii Concord. Graec. f C. xx. v. 1/. 28. t C. i. v. 3. / . 

§ When on his way to martyrdom, he informs the Philadelphians, that he betook himself to the Apostles, as to the 
Presbytery of the church, ^^(pvyav toi$ AworoAoi;, a; wgcaGvTcpiv Exxtojenaf. Ignat. Epist. ad Philadelph. sect, 3. 
(1 1 Epis. Gen, Pet. c. v. v. i. ^ De Sacerdotio. ** Vid. Bez. Annot, 

tt 1 Tim, c. v. v. 2. } } Errata,, page 47, 

D 



18 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6n 


lTim. v. 17- 


Ilfscr^vTEpoi 


Presbyteri 


Priests 


Presbyteri. 


'Elders.' 


'Elders.' (21) 


1 Tim. v. 19. 


kcitx TI^ea-0v- 


ad versus 
Presbyterum 


against a 
' Priest.' 


ad versus 
Presbyterum. 


against an 
' Elder.' 


against an 1 El- 
der.' (22) 


Jam. v. 14. 




inducat 
Presbyteros 
ecclesias. 


let him bring 
in the ' Priests' 
of the Church. 


advocato ' pres- 
byteros' eccle- 
siae. A. M. ad- 
vocet, &c. 


let him bring 
in the ' Elders' 
of the Church. 


let him call for 
the ' Elders ' of 
the Church. (23) 


Acts xiv. 23. 




Presbyteros. 


Priests 


Presbyteros 


' Elders' 


when they had 
ordained them 
4 Elders.' (24) 


21. 22. 


23- 24. See the preceding number. 








Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's Latin Text! 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James's BibleiGut 


1 Tim.iv. 14- 


TOf, &C. &C. 
' n^EP-jSfTEgls' 


noli negli- 
ge re ' gra- 
tiam' quae in 
te est, &c. 

Presbyterii. 


neglect not the 
' grace' that is 
in thee, &c. 

Priesthood. 


ne negligito 
' donum ' quod 
m ie esr, occ. 
- • — Presby- 
terii. A. M. 
ne neglige illud 
in te donum. 


'gift' 
' Eldership' 


Neglect not 
the ' gift ' that 
is in tnee, occ. 

of the Presby- 
tery. (25) 



25. *Ylf)2U'pVT£ptX* -j-Ward says, " if they (the Protestant Translators) meant no worse 
than the old Latin translator did, they would be as indifferent as he, to have said sometimes 
priest and priesthood, when he has the words ' presbyteros 'and ' presbyterium/ as we are, saying 
seniors and ancients, when we find it so in Latin ; being well assured, that by sundry words he 
meant but -one thing, as in Greek it is but one." Jerome translates ^v^vr^op, which occurs but 



* Coetus presbyterorum Scap. Lex. 



f Errata, page 47. 



% Vid. Erasm. Schmid. Concord. Grsec. in loc. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



in three places, — in the first \seniores ; in the second, \majores natu ; and in the third, \\pres- 
byterium. Again, as to %^m^ he renders it ^senior, or major natu, much oftener than presbyter, 
where the ministers of the gospel are spoken of. Evidently, then, it must follow, that he is no 
less liable to the charge of evil intention, corruption, or novelty, than the Protestant translators ; 
since both equally derived their versions from the same source. And it is equally evident, " that 
as he meant but one thing, since in Greek it is but one," it must be in the signification of that 
term he uses oftenest; viz. 'senior,' or elder; and,, therefore, it follows, that he understood 
'presbyter' to be synonymous with 'senior,' 'major natu,' &c. which the Protestant Translators 
have rendered e elder ;' and not with sacerdos, priest, i. e. sacriftcer, according to the Rhemish 
Version. 

Well, then, were they justified in being scrupulous- about the adoption of the terms 'priest,' 
'priesthood,' &c. on the misapplication of which the Popish Church partly grounds the sacrifice of 
the mass, a sacrificing priesthood, &c. and in preserving as perfect a distinction between the 
priesthood of the law and the ministry, of the gospel as ffs^vs and w^vr^oq point out. As, then, 
presbyter and priest are not of the same import, it is preposterous in Ward to affirm, that 
presbyter, sacrijicium, altare (elder, sacrifice, altar), are consequents inseparable from, and 
dependent on, each other:; or, that presbyter bears more relation to ' sacrifice,' &c. than senior, 
major natu, &c. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek . 


Vulgate Text. 


Rh em ish Version . 


Beza'sLatinText. 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6n 


2 Tim. i. 6. 


ctsa^awvqin to 


ut resuscites 
' gratiam' 


that thou re- 
suscitate the 
' grace.' 


ut exsuscites 
4 donum.' A. 
M. 'donum.' 


'g,ft' 


that thou stir up 
the < gift' (26) 



26\.tt yOLgHTfJLCL* The Protestant translators are charged by §§Ward with adopting the 
word 'gift' instead of ' grace,' "for fear of making it clash with the xxvth of their xxxix. articles." 
Here is an accusation brought forward in direct opposition to fact; since Tindal and Coverdale, 
who made the first English versions of the bible which were printed, were no way^concerned in 
framing the j|||xxxix. articles. These were not drawn up for several years after, and were generally 
supposed to be the production of Cranmer and Ridley. The former, therefore, could not be said 

t Luke, c. xxii. v. 66. § Acts, c. xxii. v. v. j| 1 Tim. c. iv. v. 14. j See Mat.c. xv. v.2. — Acts, c. xv. v. 4 et passim, 
ft Sacerdos is translated in the French Bibles Sacrijicateur ; and Presbyter, where it signifies a minister of the word and 
sacraments, Preire. It- is also a most -remarkable circumstance, that in the Irish Version of the New Testament made from the 
Vulgate, and by a Romanist too, six. of the seven texts adduced by Ward, and among them even that of James v. 14. on which the 
Popish Church founds extreme unction, are rendered by Sinnsaar, Sinnscarnibh, and Sheanora, words expressive of Elder., 
Presbytery, &c. ; while-the text in Titus i. 5, and only that, is rendered by Sagairt, (Sacerdos) , which properly implies Priest,, 
in the Popish signification of that term ! ! See Focalsir Gasidhilge-Sax-Bhearla, in Joe. 

tt Quod quis gratificando donavit, donum. Scap, hh Errata, page 47. 

yii See Bennet's Essay on the thirty-nine Articles. 

D 2 



20 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



to have shaped their translation according to a particular form of faith, which was not in existence 
at the time ; or to be actuated by any other motive than that of conveying the Apostle's meaning 
in the plainest, yet most expressive language. And if the revisers of the bible, in 1611, con- 
firmed ■ gift,' as the fittest reading, it did not arise " for fear" (as Ward expresses it) of causing 
any discordance between their version and the articles, but because it was warranted by the 
original Greek. Indeed, there is a palpable absurdity in saying that a translation of any word in 
scripture has been made to suit the articles, which can themselves be only interpreted by 
scripture. 

Now, as to the word x*v<r\ut, it is no where taken in scripture, but as a 'free gift' of God, or 
a ' gift of his grace.' And, although extraordinary gifts were imparted by the hands of an 
Apostle, at the first planting of the church, yet, as they ceased with the necessity which called 
them forth, it naturally follows, that 'grace' should not always accompany that ceremony. This, 
experience testifies ; as, if the candidate for holy orders possess not gifts competent to the dis- 
charge of his office, he will not exhibit any increase of grace, or gracious gifts, although he may 
have authority committed to him. For this reason, therefore, the Church of England does not 
esteem holy orders a sacrament ; inasmuch as it is defective in the essential properties of one. In 
this opinion she is borne out not' only by the language of scripture itself, but by the concurrent 
testimony of some of the most eminent among the Fathers, during the first five centuries, who 
make mention of only two sacraments; viz. Baptism and the Lord's Supper. It is quite a 
modern doctrine, and owes its origin to Peter Lombard, so celebrated for his " Book of Sentences," 
who first enumerated, in the twelfth century, seven sacraments: nor was the sense of the Romish 
Church respecting it decided before the sixteenth century, when it was formally declared by the 
Council of Trent. 

Moreover, on a comparison of Romans c. xii. \\$, in which x % %^¥- Ma occurs, with the 
texts belonging to numbers 25 and 26, the propriety of rendering that term ' gifts' will be 
strikingly apparent. For the Latin of the Syriac version of the former text is donum; and in 
the Sixtine-CIementine edition of the Vulgate itself, it is donationes. This word was selected by 
Jerome, probably, to avoid tautology, as well as the absurdity which would arise from the following 
run of the sentence : ' habentes autem gratiss, secundum gratiam.' The Rhemists, perceiving 
their leader to have thus confounded terms which are in themselves of different significations, ven- 
tured to depart from his version, and consequently from their own rule, by rendering the word 
donationes 'gifts;' but which more strictly implies the ' act of giving away.' Jerome's transla- 
tion, too, of tx«sg«r8>j 9 viz. *donatum est, proves he did not consider the verb x fl «'£ /*** in that 
particular passage, more than in '{"St. Luke^s Gospel and the [jlActs, to imply the grace of God. 
Why, then, it may be asked, did the Rhemists translate that verb, ' it is given f and thereby 
suppress the mention of grace altogether? 



* Phil.c. i. v.29. 



t C. vii. V. 21. 42, 43. Vulg. donavit. 



X C.iii. v. 14. et passim. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IX lGll. 



21 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate lext. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza s L<atin 1 ext 


ISps.JDible, 1568. 


K.James'sRible 1611 


1 Tim. iii. 8. 


Ai*>tovou< Ihtolv- 


' Diaconos ' 
similiter pu- 
dicos. 


' Deacons ' 
in like manner 
chaste. 


Diaconos 
itidem venera- 
biles. 


*' Ministers, ' 

in a 
marginal note 
' Deacons. ' 


likewise must the 
* Deacons ' be 
grave. (27) 



Marked thus * altered to the present reading A, D. 1611. 



27. AldKOUSg* §Ward says, " The word they translate for minister is diaconus; 
the very same that, a little after, they translate deacon." This makes it appear, that the 
insertion of the Htext taken from the first epistle to Timothy among the Errata, was not, as 
Doctor Ryan was led to suppose, because Ward either desired to increase his catalogue of errors, 
or that he looked upon it as one ; but that he wished to ridicule a supposed contrivance, or (to 
use his own elegant phrase) " a poor shift, " of the Protestant Translators in attempting 
to make " three orders, Bishops, Ministers, and Deacons, out of two;" viz. Eno-ao™ and AAim. 
This is but Gregory Martin redivivus, he having set up the same wretched cavil a century before 
Ward's time. The first translators, unquestionably with no such design as that imputed to them, 
rendered the Greek word of the ^[text in question ( ministers,' because they conceived it was 
taken in the general sense. Their successors, however, altered it to ' deacons ' in 1611, from 
which period to the present it has continued to be so read. 

Ward next proceeds to object to ' grave,' as fit English for m mfMis } which he says they 
prefer to ' chaste ;' " on purpose to make room for their ministers' wives." ' Grave ' is a word 
peculiarly proper as a translation for the Greek, since it includes the ideas of dignity, stayedness, 
&c. in the clerical character. But, admitting the word ' chaste' to be still more proper, it would 
not make for the popish doctrine of the celibacy of the clergy ; as St. Paul expressly states, and 
in the same chapter too, the qualities required, as well in the characters of the wives themselves 
as in the deacons, which he would not have done, were the latter single. Notwithstanding that, 
in the ffepistle to the Philippians, the Greek word is rendered by the same Latin (viz. pudicus) in 
the Vulgate, and in the text corresponding with the above number, yet the Rhemists vary 
their English translation, terming it in the one place 'chaste,' and in the other ^'honest.' 

The Latin of the Syriac version is honestus; but whether guided by other versions or not, it 
appears they overlooked Jerome's text, although Ward stiffly maintains the contrary. 



§ Errata, p. 47. fl C. iii. v. 12. f C. iii. v. 6 

** Venerabilis, sanctus, gravis, castus. Heder. ft C. iv. v. 8. 

XX Some later editions of the Rhe uish Testament read ' modest.' 



22 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza'sLatinText. 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6n 


1 Tim. iii. 
12. 




Diaconi sint 
unius uxoris 
viri. 


let Deacons be 
the husband 
of one wife. 


Diaconi sint 
unius uxoris 
mariti. 


Let the ' Dea- 
cons ' be, &c. 


Let the ' Dea- 
cons ' be the hus- 
bands of one wife. 

(28) 



28. yVVT,* This term is rendered ' wife ' in the *Rhemish New Testament, and, in the verse 
immediately preceding, ' woman.' Here there could be no other motive why the Rhemists should 
prefer the latter term, except to make scripture speak in behalf of the single lives of the Romish 
Clergy; since, as has been noticed in the preceding number, the Apostle is treating of the neces.- 
sary qualifications of deaconesses, or deacons' wives, not less than their husbands. Of this 
Ward seems to be aware, as he passes it by unnoticed, and dwells on a ftext where yv m 
occurs ; whose signification, even if ambiguous, which it is not, would not explain away what is. 
so emphatically laid down here by the same authority. 



SECTION V.— AUTHORITY OF PRIESTS. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza'sLatinText. 


Bps.Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6ui 


Malachiii. 7- 


--y. ropctrot av- 
m, $,oti ' ayft- 
Xoj,' &c. 
Heb. -}r!?d. 


Labia enim 
sacerdotis 
custodient 
scientiam, et 
legem requi- 
rent ex ore 
ejus: quia 'an- 
gel us,' &c. 


The Priests'lips 

1 shall ' keep 
knowledge, and 
they 'shall' seek 
the law at his 
mouth, because 
he is the ' an- 
gel,' &c. 




£ should ' keep 
. . . ' should ' 

seek 

because he is 
the 'messenger' 
&c. 


For the 
priests' lips 
' should ' keep 
knowledge, 
and they 
' should ' seek 
the law at his 
mouth : for he is 
the ' messenger ' 
of the Lord of 
hosts. (29) 



■now t _ *• - 
og custodient. *fvX<L&TCUC 

requirent. BK^YjTl^(TS(TL \ In the opening of the ||chapter in which these words occur, 
the priests are addressed by God through his prophet. In the fourth verse, he makes mention of 



* See Column ' Rhemish Version,' and l Tim.c. iii. v. 11. f 1 Cor. c. ix. v. 5. See also No. 30. 

i Custodient, i. e. custodire delent: verba quae actionem notant de debito szepe intelliguntur. Vid. Ezek. c. xxxiv. v. 2. qui 
pascnnt; i. e.pascere delelant. Pol. Synops. in loc, j| Malachi, c, ii. v. 1, 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



the covenant he made with Levi, about keeping the law ; and, in the eighth verse, of the viola- 
tion of that covenant: as he says, " but ye are departed out of the way ; ye have caused many to 
stumble at the law ; ye have corrupted the covenant of Levi, saith the Lord of Hosts." As a 
reproof is here conveyed, the future indicative of the Hebrew verb is best rendered into English 
by the potential, as the former language has not fthat mood. Thus, then, it is clear, that the 
prophet speaks of the knowledge of the law which the priest ought to have, and not that which 
he always had : as many of the priests, even all sometimes, were ignorant ; and the high-priest 
often an idolater. They who condemned Christ and his gospel were high priests ; and the idolatrous 
Urias was an high priest. So that the words evidently contain a commandment of what the priest's 
lips should do, rather than an assurance that he always did so : for, as he had authority, so he should 
be Jcapable, to decide in all cases of controversy which fell within the limits of God's law. 

Prom this passage it is that §Ward infers the infallible (his language certainly implies nothing 
short of infallibility) judgment of the popish priests in matters of religion. His inference is, however, 
wrong ; as St. Peter and his successors, not being differently privileged from Aaron and his successors, 
might fall, and be deceived. And although Christ prayed that his and their faith should not fail, and 
even that of all believers ; and that they might be sanctified in the truth; yet it would be folly to 
maintain that they were, therefore, not liable to err, when the very circumstance of prayer itself sup- 
poses the possibility of error. 

The priest (^ev S ) is not called angelus, merely because he should imitate the sanctity of an angel ; 
but as he was the legate, or conveyer of the divine commands to men, under the old dispensation, the 
term is better rendered by messenger. This rational explication is however rejected by Ward, and one 
substituted, which may well lead the unlearned and Unthinking in the popish church to look upon their 
clergy, as something more than human ; and to suppose that those, who are styled ' angels,' are so hi* 
nature. When even Bristow, a popish doctor of considerable learning, mistook the angel of the 
church of Philadelphia for an angel by nature, surely the possibility of the frequent recurrence of such- 
mistakes cannot be doubted, among others less informed. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James 'sBiblei6i i 


Apoc. ii. 1.8. 
12. iii. 1. 




Angelo 


To the Angel 


Angelo 


*To the ' mes- 
senger.' 


Unto the ' angel/ 

(SO> 



Marked thus * altered to the present reading A. D. 1611. 



30. Ayj£A0£. Ward, as is common with the popish commentators on this passage, absurdly 
identifies the angel, or bishop, or president of the ch'urch, with the church itself; whereas the letters 



f Hebraei, quia potentialem modum non habent, coguntur abuti futuro indicativi. Grotius. 

+ Sacerdotum est callere legem, et alios illam docere. Pol. Synops. in loc. ,! § Errata, page 49. 



24 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



to the church are directed to the angel, or bishop, he being, by virtue of his office, the fittest person 
to communicate their contents to it. The ablest expositors are of opinion, that they are addressed 
§" ad angelum immediate, ad ecclesiam mediate;" and one of them particularly observes, that " per 
angelos, secundum stylum apocalypticum, omnes eos, qui sub eorum prasfectura agunt quovis modo, 
aut negociantur, repncsentari vel insinuari, nulli dubium esse potest." 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RlicniishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBible iGu 


Mai. ni. 1. 


l^XTtO'i^Xu to: 
xyyiXov (J.H,&:C. 

T»IJ> & C. 


mitto ' an- 
cjelum'meum 
&c....et ' an- 
gel us' Testa- 
menti, &c .... 

Pagninus 
reads'feederis' 


I send mine 
' angel,' &c... 
even the angel 
of the Testa- 
ment, &c. 




' Messenger,' 
'^....'Messen- 
ger' of the co- 
venant. 


I will send my 
Messenger, &c... 
even the Messen- 
ger of the cove- 
nant. 

(31) 



31. "TttbD. j"Ayj£?\.0£. Ward says, " St. Hierom, St. Gregory, and all the Fathers, conceive a 
great excellency of this word angel." As to the name of ' angel,' it is of itself no title of dignity ; 
inasmuch as there are angels of the devil and darkness, as well as angels of God and light. So that, 
as the term is generally understood to signify a spirit, or a pure spiritual nature, and not a bodily 
creature, the Protestant Translators thought proper to adopt the term messenger in conformity to the 
Hebrew and Greek, and this without at all lessening the dignity of the persons so addressed, which de- 
pends on their being ' angels ' of God, of the Church, &c. 

Isidorus Clarius interprets the passage in question (viz. Mai. iii. 1.) legatas. Even the Vulgate 
reading of the Prophet ^Haggai Is ' nuncius' domini, the Lord's ' messenger ;' the same occurs in 
different ||other passages of scripture, where mention is made of God's messengers ; the Hebrew 
term continuing unvaried throughout. 

Can any thing, then, more clearly demonstrate how unfounded Ward's accusation, in this article, 
is, than the very circumstance just stated ? But it may be answered, that although angelus be found in 
most copies of the Vulgate, and in the Bibles of Montanus, Isidorus Clarius, &c. in one of the texts 
of Isaiah before referred to, yet that, in the Sixtine-Clementine Bible, a reading (viz. nuncius) which 
warrants the Douay translation (viz. messenger) is to be met with. Now, admitting this, what does it, 
on Ward's own principle, prove? Why, that any use of the term, as he conceives it to be only applicable 
" to post-boys and lacqueys," must derogate from the " dignity and excellency" of the priesthood- 

§ Vid. Pol. Synops. in loc. 
| Austin says, " a name not of nature, but of office. 1 ' See Leigh's Crif. Sacr. 
* C. i. V. 13. nuncius occurs twice in this passage, and is rendered messenger each time in the Douay Bible. 

11 Viz, Isaiah, r. xlij, y, ig, and c. xliv. V. 2G. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



25 



and as it were, ex confesso, is he convicted of the very charge he brings against the Protestant Trans- 
lators ; while his modest comparison between the popish priests of the present day, and the prophets, 
apostles, &c. of the primitive age, is made to appear in its true light. For, it is to be apprehended, 
that the resemblance is not striking enough to be perceived by those who are in the habit of judging for 
themselves, and deciding by the evidence of facts. 

It only remains to be noticed, that as in the first clause of the Jverse, the allusion is to John the 
Baptist, the Hebrew word is fitly rendered 'messenger; 1 (which the Greek ayfixo; itself strictly implies,) 
as the messenger, or ambassador of a prince, is received as the prince himself ; and in the second clause, 
Christ being pointed out by the same term, is most appropriately represented in his mediatorial capacity 
as ' messenger ' of the league, i. e. of the covenant between God and man. In this sense Grotius consi- 
dered him, when he styled him " Legatus ille magnus, &c." 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6n 


Matthew 
xi. 10. 

Luke vii. 27- 


toji ayyi'hov |U,s, 
&c. 

Idem. 


An gel urn 
meum 

Id. 


mine Angel 
Id. 


nunciummeum 
Id. 


my ' messen- 
ger' 

Id. 


my ' messenger.' 

(32) 

Id. (33) 


32. 33. See the preceding numbers. 


Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'Biblel611 


2 Cor. ii. 10. 


IV 1t(0(T01Tt01 


in the person 
of Christ 


in persona 
Christi 


in conspectu 

Christi 
A. Mont, in 

facie. 


*in the ' sight, 
&c. 


in the ' Person' of 
Christ. 

(34) 



Marked thus * altered to the present reading A. D. 1611. 



34. §Ej/ ffgOGtoffbU At the time Ward enumerated this among his Errata, it was no less acknow- 

X Mai. c. hi. ver. 1. 

§ On this text the Rhemists presumptuously ground that most unscriptural tenet of the works of supererogation, according 
to which the Saints have not only deserved eternal happiness, but that their good works so far exceeded what they were bound to 
perform, that they have it in their power to apply the excess to the benefit of others ! Although this subject be included in the 
discussion on a succeeding article, yet the language of the popish church, in treating it, is too absurd and dogmatical to be passed 
over in silence. 

" Whereupon we inferre most assurely, that the satisfactorie and penal works of holy Sainctes suffered in this life, be commu- 
nicable and applicable to the use of other faithfull men, their fellow-members in our Lord, and to be dispensed according to every 
man's necessite and deserving, by them whom Christ hath constituted over his familie, and hath made the dispensers of his trea- 
sures." See Rhem.Test. on 2 Cor. c. ii. v. 30. 

E 



26 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 

ledged, than it is now, by Protestants, that bishops, priests, or elders, both bind and loose, as in the 
person and power of C hrist ; so in his name, and by his authority. And as to remission of sins, or 
^absolution, they do not exclude its form, provided that the promises of God in Christ be first de- 
clared ; while they condemn the popish absolution, which keeps those who confess in ignorance as to 
the terms on which they receive it. 



Book. Ch. Vev. 



Orijj;. Greek 



Vulgate Text. 



Rhemish Version . 



Beza's Latin Text 



Bps. Bible, 1568. 



K.James'sBiblei6n 



Mat. ii. 6. 



Micah v. 2. 



;£eAei> 
aerou nyd^iwc 
oris voifuxtei to 
Acton Icr^JtijA. 



ex te enim 
exiet dux, 
qui regat po- 
pulummeum 
Israel. 



for out of thee 

shall come 
forth the cap- 
tain that shall 
rule my people 
Israel. 



tb tuou ei; ctp^- 
net. TS \u(a.y{K 



qui sit domi- 
nator, &c. 



. ex te enim 
exibit dux qui 
pascet populum 
ilium meum 
Israel. 



that shall be 
the dominator 
in Israel. 



A. Mont, ren 
ders it, ad ex- 
existendum do- 
minatorem. 



that shall feed, 
kc. 



for out of thee 
shall come a Go- 
vernor, that shall 
' rule ' my people 
Israel. (35) 



Governor,' &c 



that is to be 
' Ruler ' in Israel. 



(36) 



Marked thus * altered to the present reading A. D. 1611. 



35. 36. O^iC, 7f0l[J,CtlV2l, The texts corresponding with these numbers were altered to their 
{present reading A. D. 161 1. But, taking them as they stand in the first English translations, it is 
worth while enquiring whether they imply any thing derogatory (as it is insisted on they do not) to 
Episcopal authority. In the gospel of ^St. John, Christ manifestly confines the word to ' feeding 
since iWe occurs twice, and vo^w but once. The Vulgate has pasce, and the Rhemish New Testa- 
ment ' feed,' as their respective translations of the Greek, as well of vnpoun as /3°o-«, and in the ||first 
Epistle General of Peter, sroyew*^ also, obtains a similar translation in both ; so that if the Protestant 
Translators deserve censure, Jerome, not less than the Rhemists, must come in for a share. Moreover, 
St. Peter could not so well manifest his love of Christ by governing, or ruling, (in the sense attached 
to these words by Ward) " with a rod of iron" as by carefully feeding his flock. Neither does the 
signification. 4 to feed' exclude the other, it rather implies governing. But beside all this, the Pro- 
testant translation of the word is " rule" in ^Revelations; and an expression still stronger, and one 



f See St. John, c. xx. v. 23. and Matt. c. xviii.v. 18. "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, &c." was 

a general commission. 

% See column, ' Bible ' \Q\\. § C. xxi. v. 15, 16, 8 C. v. v. 2, 

% C. ii. v. 27. andc, xix. v. 15. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



21 



which would tend to increase, rather than diminish, the authority of the Church, is used (mpon* is the 
Septuagint reading) in the *Psalms : scil. " thou shalt break them, &c." The reader will perceive from 
this, how badly Ward is borne out by fact in the charges he makes, and, at the same time, how little 
scripture countenances that overbearing, tyrannical sway over potentates and nations, which the 
Church of Rome substituted for that salutary control acknowledged by the Church of England, as 
essential to the well-being of the Church of Christ. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version . 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.Jarnes*sBiblei6i[f 


1 Pet. ii. 13. 


'TwoTayiiTE ova 

' JCTlCTEl ' JlOt TCK 

Kl'^iov" site Ba.- 

• 


Subjecti 
igitur estote 
omni huma- 
nae creaturae 

propter 
Deum, sive 
regi quasi 
prascellenti : 


Be subject 

therefore to 
every human 

creature, for 
God, whether 

it be to the 
King as excel- 
ling : 


Proinde 
subjecti estote 
cuivis humana; 
' ordinationi 1 
propter Domi 
num : sive regi, 
ut supere- 
minenti : 
A. Mont. 
' superhabenti. ' 


. . . . ' unto all 
manner of or- 
dinance of 
man whether 
it be unto the 
King as 'having 
pre-eminence.' 


Subniityourselves 
to ' every ordi- 
nance of man ' 

for the Lords 
sake : whether it 
be to the King as 
{ Supreme.' (37) 



37. JCTl&lG. This term denotes creature, creation, &c. Both Greeks and Romans called the 
appointment of their magistrates a 'creation' of them. But as the Apostle is here enjoining the 
Christians of Pontus to obedience to persons in authority, without considering whether their religion 
was true or false, the natural import of the word must evidently be rule, law, or ordinance. As the 
' word stands in the Rhemish translation, the injunction of the Apostle involves a palpable absurdity ; 
viz. that masters should be subject to their slaves, &c. In the gospel of JSt, Mark, the Vulgate 
translation of the same term is creaturce, which is there properly rendered ' creature' 1 by the Rhemists. 

|| Ward, with his accustomed acrimony, inveighs against the English Translators, as 
being actuated by the same motive, in their translation of this term, which they entertained when 
they rendered »o»/**i»6iv, ' to feed;' viz. that of diminishing ecclesiastical authority, and conferring it on 
the crown. He then insinuates that, in their subsequent translation, they made a change, for the 
purpose of withdrawing the spiritual jurisdiction so conferred, from the crown, in the reign of Queen 
Elizabeth; " because," he says, " perhaps, they thought they could be bolder with a Queen than a 
King, &c." This is not the case, as she enjoyed and exercised the same authority in ecclesiastical 

* C. ii. v. g. The Protestant Version, evidently, was made from the Hebrew. Pagninus renders can in conteres eas, or 
confringes ; which A. Montanus confirms Yet this does not alter the tendency of the above remark. 

t Creatio, creatura, ordinatio politica, &c. Scap. Heder. Lex. T C. xvi. v. 15. 

§ Superemineo, antecello. Scap. || Errata, page 51. 

E 2 



28 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



matters, as her predecessors, Henry the Eighth, and Edward the Sixth ; nor was the title of ' Su- 
preme Head ' of the Church granted to those monarchs, except in the same sense in which it was 
afterwards conferred on her. 

It may be observed respecting Ward's quotation from one of *Ignatius's epistles, viz. " that we 
must first honour God, then the Bishop, then the King ; because in all things, nothing is comparable 
to God, and in the Church, nothing greater than the Bishop; and among Magistrates, none is like the 
King,'' — that, supposing those writings genuine, the words cited imply nothing of a Bishop's pre- 
eminence above a King, but what Protestants acknowledge to be true of every ordinary priest; only, 
however, in what peculiarly belongs to his office. 



Book. Ch.Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion . 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBibleiGn 


Acts xx. 28. 


. . . . T6 7[V£V[/.GC 

to ayiov £$bto 

'ETTKJ-y.OWUS, 

exxTwaiav, &C. 


Spiritus 
Sanctus po- 
suit Episco- 
pos, regere 
ecclesiam, 
&c. 


. . . The Holy 
Ghost hath 
placed you 
Bishops to rule 
the Church, 
Sic. 


. . . Spiritus ille 
Sanctus, con- 
stituit Episco- 
pos, ' ad pas- 
cendam ' eccle- 
siam, &c. A. 
Mont, pascere. 


.... 1 Over- 
seers, to feed,' 
&c. 




. . . The Holy 
Ghost hath made 
you ' Overseers, 
to feed ' the 
Church, &c. 

(38) 



38. E7n<T%07r8$ 9 *7T0l[JLa.lVSlV 9 &c. Ward's objection to the Protestant translation of this 
phrase is no less frivolous than that he made in the preceding number. Of the two versions', the 
Rhemish one is clearly the least accurate ; as the former Greek word implies an Overseer, and the 
latter, the office of a Shepherd, supplying his flock with (here metaphorically, spiritual,) food. Such 
is the natural explication of the passage, sanctioned, too, by Erasmus, one of the ablest and most 
learned men of the sixteenth century, in the following words : " q. d. ad curandum, more pastorum ; 
nam Episcopi est, non se, sed oves pascere." Ward, however, is totally regardless of this, and, unde- 
viatingly pursuing his object, heaps abuse and calumny on the Protestant translators, " who,'' he says, 
" suppress the word bishop, and translate it overseers ; and this they do, because, in King Edward the 
Sixth and Queen Elizabeth's time, they had no episcopal consecration, but were made only by their letters 
patent.'' He then concludes with telling his readers, that he will proceed no further, as he reserves 
" these things for ||another treatise." And here it may not be irrelevant to remark, that this other 
treatise did make its appearance, in which he repeated these identical charges ; and that on its repub- 
lication in Dublin, two or three years ago, it has, for the first time, been most ably answered by 1[Dr. 

*Ep. ad Smyrnenses. 

f Inspector. Scap. St. Paul, when he called the Elders of Christ's Church EniZKOnoi seems to have alluded to Isaiah 
Ix. 17° (lxx. VERS.) Kxi dam ts? a,iyj>vT<x.s era ev ei^/ivy), kcu t»; EniSKOllOTS era (thy Oyerseers) iv tixcciovvtr.. 

% Pasco, guberno. euro. Steph. || Viz. The Controversy of Ordination. 

^ See his pamphlet, entitled, The Clergy of the Church of England truly ordained, &c. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



29 



EIrington. He has most satisfactorily proved, that a viler slander, or a grosser falsehood, was never 
propagated, than the Nag's Head story ; and that it has been designedly fabricated to substantiate 
the first part of the foregoing charge. From the book itself, to which the reader is referred, every 
necessary information may be had ; as it would neither suit the design of the present undertaking, nor 
be doing justice to Doctor Elrington's work to have it more than briefly adverted to. 

With respect to letters patent, edicts, or acts of parliament, making, or being thought capable 
of making, bishops, nothing can be more abhorrent from the principles of the Church of England. 
Her sentiments on this head, which are clear and explicit, are — that where there is any deficiency in 
the essentials of consecration or ordination, they (viz. letters, &c.) cannot make either valid ; and, on 
the other hand, that if they possess those essentials, nothing can render them invalid. With this 
conviction impressed on her mind, Queen Elizabeth neither did, nor affected to do, more than to 
appoint Bishops to Sees, where they were to discharge episcopal functions. The emperors formerly 
exercised a like jurisdiction within their dominions, and even sometimes extended it to the appointment 
of the Popes. Must not the Papists be aware, that it was by means of the civil power, that the 
spiritual authority of their own church, humble and lowly as it was in the fifth century, gradually 
waxed strong, until towards the beginning of the seventh, it usurped the power which fostered its 
encroachments, and settled in a confirmed despotism, which continued both the scourge and the 
terror of Europe, to the era of the Reformation ? Equivocal as the attachment of *Constantine the 
Great undoubtedly was, at first, to the Christian religion, and its professors, it was his edicts and 
laws in their favour, which not only caused persecution to cease, but which laid the foundation of Chris- 
tianity becoming the established religion of the Roman empire. Numberless -j-other instances might 
be added, if necessary, to shew that the authority possessed by the governing power, in every country 
which embraced Christianity, has been exercised in its support ; any one of which would be sufficient 
to set aside Ward's objections. It may be added that this interference of the civil power is not 
exclusively confined to the Christian church ; it is what has taken place, wherever even the Pagan and 
Mahomedan religions have been established. 

As to the allegation made by Ward, that the Church of England never pretended to any other 
than nominal episcopacy for several years after Queen Elizabeth began her reign, much need not be 
said to point out the gross falsify of it. Burnet, whom in this instance he misrepresents, says nothing 
more than that the Church of England, with that moderation which marks her character, has drawn 
up her ^twenty-third article, so as to comprehend those Christian Societies who dispense with 
episcopacy and episcopal ordination as unnecessary, within the number of Christian Churches; while 
she claims for her own clergy, an uninterrupted succession of the three ancient orders of Bishops, 
Priests, and Deacons, and a regular ordination to their holy office, from the Apostolic to the pre- 
sent age. Burnet, speaking of the framers of the article, observes, " they left this matter open and at 
large for such accidents as have happened, and such as might still happen." 

* See Mosh. Eccl. Hist. vol. i. page 321. t Clovis in France, Ethelbert in England, &c. 

% " It is not lawful for any man to take upon him the office of public teaching, or ministering the Sacraments in the congre- 
gation before he be lawfully called and sent to execute the same, &c." Article xxiii. 



30 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



SECTION VI. — THE SINGLE LIVES OF PRIESTS. 



Book. Ch. Ver. ( 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. ] 


Ihemish Version. 


3eza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 1 


\.James'sB iblei6n 


1 Cor. ix. 5. 


S/lr) ovx. £%°/*ev 

yVVXDtX !Ti(iCt' 

ytiy, &C. 


numquid 
non habe- 
mus, po- { 
testatem 
mulierem, 
sororem cir- 
cumducendi? 
&c. The Vul- 
gate consult- 
ed by A. M. 

reads 
* muliercu- 
1am.' 


Have not we 
x>wer to lead 
ibout a woman, 
i sister? &c. 


Annon 
licet nobis 
sororem ux- 
orem circum- 
ducere, &c. 


... a sister, 
a wife ? 


Have we not 
power to lead 
about a ' sister, a 
wife?' &c. (39) 


Phil. iv. 3. 


Kxi war a km 


Etiam rogo 
et te germane 
compar. 


Yea, and I be- 
seech thee, my 
sincere compa- 
nion. 


et rogo te quo- 
que, socie ger- 
mane, &c. 
A. Mont. 
renders 
< ovfyye ' socie. 


yoke-fellow, 
&c. 


And I intreat 
thee also, true 
yoke- fellow, &c. 

(40) 


Heb, xiii. 4. 


TijAioi; o yxfioc, 
a mct-ai, xa,i % 


Honorabile 
connubium 
in omnibus, 
et thorus im- 
maculatus. 


ivTnr'iMaorA n r\- 

-LVJtli I IdciC UU" 

nourable in all, 
and the bed un- 
defined. 


l xyJiiyji txunc Col 

inter quosvis 
conjugium, et 
cubile impollu- 
turn, &c. 


WpdlnrV e is ' 

VV lo 

honorable, &c. 


lviarnage is 
honourable in all, 
and the bed un- 
defined, &c. 

(4.1) 



39. A jsAcpl^I/ *yvVCWCCL, The latter term taken by itself may indifferently be translated 
* wife,' or woman/ as the circumstance of the place requires, where it is used. The Septuagint read- 

* Mulier. faemina. uxor. Scap. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



31 



ing is y»m in *two chapters of Genesis, towards the beginning, where no doubt can arise about its 
acceptation. That it signifies ' wife,' in the present instance, is obvious for many reasons. It would, 
in the first place, be absurd to translate the Greek ' a sister, a woman ;' as the term *h\Qi> itself 
imports a woman, here, also, a faithful woman ; and as follows, it must needs mean ' wife,' to 
avoid unnecessary repetition. Jerome, in his translation, reverses the natural order of the words thus, 
mulierem sororem ; a circumstance on which, in particular, the Rhemists lay great stress. Next, as 
only one woman attended the Apostle, not only no imputation can be thrown on St. Peter, whom St. 
Paul states to be a married man, but even suspicion is guarded against by the adoption of the word 
wife. Thirdly, the words " to lead about," imply a degree of authority, such as that of a husband 
over his wife, and which the Apostle could not have used, if he spoke of a woman voluntarily follow- 
ing him. And, lastly, supposing a woman would voluntarily attend the Apostle in his travels through 
Judea, it is very improbable that she would extend her attendance on him to foreign countries. 

f St. Paul says, " let every man have his own wife ;" and +again, " marriage is honourable in all." 
Numberless other passages might be adduced which favours the marriage of the clergy, while not one 
exists which can be interpreted into a prohibition. Is not ||Ward, then, convicted of a gross untruth, 
when he asserts, " that continency, and a single life, have always been annexed, in the New Testament, 
to the sacred order of priesthood ?" 

The testimony of the Fathers, too, is directly at variance with what Ward asserts. For, §Cle- 
mens of Alexandria relates Peter's wife to have continued in matrimonial connection with him to the 
day of his martyrdom. Nay, further, he expressly makes mention of their daughter, Petronilla, and 
even of her espousal to one Flaccus. Again, he says, he that marries, enov*s tsj AworsoAa;, " hath the 
Apostles for examples.'' And, in another place, he confutes the enemies to matrimony with these 
very words of St. Paul, " have we not power to lead about a sister a wife, as well as the other Apostles ?" 
He, at the same time, adds, that " they carried their wives about, not as wives, but as sisters :" 
oyx <y? a$e\!pt*s, Tte^my^ raj yiwHrn. Tertullian, a presbyter of the second century, also says, " licebat Apos- 
tolis nubere, et uxores circumducere." Furthermore, it should be remarked, that as the Jews were 
wont to call their own wives, sisters, on account of their common origin ; so did the primitive 
Christians address theirs by the same appellation, on account of their common faith. 

Not before the fourth century was any attempt made by the Popes to prohibit the marriage of the 
clergy, which amounts to a presumptive proof, that, up to that period, celibacy amongst them was un- 
known. ^[Joceline says, that Calphurnius, St, Patrick's father, was a Deacon, and that his grand- 
father, Potitus, was a Presbyter: a fact not to be denied even by **Doctor Milner, although he 
endeavours to reconcile the historian's account with the practice of the popish church. It is, besides, 
certain, that this gross abuse of ecclesiastical power was not made general in its effects before the 
pontificate of Gregory the Seventh, towards the conclusion of the eleventh century. 

* ii. 25. and iv. L. f l Cor. vii. 2. + Heb. xiii. 4, II Errata, page 53 , § Fascicul Temp 

H " Cajphurn'ms autem prius in Diaconatu diutius Domino servivit." And again : " Extitit vir quidam Caiphurnius 

nomine, Alius Potiti Presbyteri. Vita Sti. Patric. 

** Inquiry, pp. 149, 150. 



32 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



40. XvL,VyS y(TV'/)lS, tWard says, " neither ought this text to be translated yoke-fellow, as 
our innovators do, on purpose to make it sound in English man and wife" The words could not 
receive a more appropriate translation than yoke- fellow, (viz. a partner in any yoke whatsoever) which 
the Greek signifies. So that if it implies ' man and wife' in English, it does equally so in Greek. 
It is not clear either, notwithstanding what Ward says, that St. Paul was single. The text he quotes 
does not say so precisely; as, in addressing the < unmarried and widows,' all that can be inferred from 
his expression is, that he was unmarried at the time he wrote those particular words Besides, he but 
merely recommends their continuance in their then state; his words are, J" it is good for them if they 
abide even as I." There is also a strong degree of probability that the Apostle saluted some ruler of 
the church, whom he calls yoke fellow, soil, in the work of Christ. This is the sense in which Pro- 
testant commentators interpret the passage. But whether the words be, or be not, referrible to the 
term ' wife,' the English translation does not decide ; a convincing proof that the translators were 
guided by the meaning, and not the sound, of this or that form of words ; and that their design was 
not such as is charitably imputed to them, that of " cloaking the sensuality of a few fallen priests.'' 

41. The insertion of " is " in the Protestant translation, undoubtedly makes the passage clearer, 
but no more implies the marriage of the clergy, than the omission of it does their celibacy. So that 
it is a matter not worth contesting, whether the passage be understood with the Church of Rome as 
comprehending a precept, or with the Church of England as comprehending an assertion. Estius un- 
derstood it in the latter sense, when he says, " res eodem recidit, utrovis modo, (assertive vel pras- 
ceptive) accipias/' Notwithstanding his authority, and that it is of little consequence, whether the 
word be added or omitted, it is proper to observe, that many of the §Fathers infer from this passage the 
permission and lawfulness of marriage to all men ; which interpretation could only be admitted by 
understanding the Apostle's words in an affirmative sense. Moreover, the particle h, in the second 
clause of the verse, denotes the words in the first clause to be expressed affirmatively. Since, therefore, 
the object of the Apostle is, as ||Beza properly judges, to dissuade m n from fornication and adul- 
tery, he points out marriage as a pure and holy remedy, and one which God has provided for man's 
infirmity. 

* Conjunctus. copulatus. Scap. f Errata, page 53. 

% 1 Cor. vft. 8. 

§ Theodoret on Heb. xiii. 4. says, " this ordinance God made in the beginning. Let us make (says he) an helper for him. 
Therefore when he had fashioned her and brought her to him, he joined them together, and gave the blessing of marriage, saying, 
increase and multiply, and fill the earth. But lawless and unchaste desires brought in adultery and fornication." Chrysostom and 
CEcumenius interpret the same text in the same way ; and Fulgentius also, taking it in an affirmative sense, observes, " the mar- 
riage of Christians is indeed holy, for in that state conjugal chastity is preserved in the body, and purity of faith, in the heart:" 
quia et conjugalis Hi castitas custoditur in corpore, et puritas fidei servatur in corde. Fulg. ad Gall, de Statu, vid. Ep. 2. Hentenius, 
a popish writer too, renders t^h>; q ya/*o; honorabile esf conjugium. 

I! " Deinde res ipsa ostendit, Apostolum, ut Hebraeos deterreret ab omni scortatione et adulterio, de matrimonio praefari, tan- 
quam honesto ac sancto adversus scortationis ac adulterii turpitudinera remedio : tacite etiam monentem ut matriraonium raajore 
xeligione colant." Vid Annot. p. 43/. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 33 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


□rig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's LatinText 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBibleiGif 


Mat. xix. 11. 


Ou newrti; ya- 
TSTOV, olKK 0l< 


Non omnes 
capiunt ver- 
bum istud, 
sed quibus 
datum est. 


Not all take 
this word, but 
they to whom 
it is given. 


Non omnes 
capaces hujus 
sermonis, sed 
ii quibus datum 
est. 


All men 'can- 
not receive,' 
&c. 


All (men) cannot 
receive this say- 
ing, save (they) 
to whom it is 
given. 

(42) 


Ibid. xix. 12. 


y.cu EKrtv evt»v- 
ya\ 'oitive? Etrna- 
yicruv £a,VTV( 
5<« TV |3acn- 
Asiav twv Otta- 
wa*. 'O Swape- 
vot; xufiiv, ya- 


et sunt 
eunuchi, qui 
seipsos cas- 
traverunt 
propter reg- 
num coelo- 
rum, qui po- 
test capere 
capiat. 


And there are 
eunuchs who 
have made 
themselves 
' eunuchs ' for 
the kingdom of 
heaven. Hethat 
can take, let 
him take. The 
Rhem. Vers. 
of 1582, has 

* h ion n/fvip 

gelded them- 
selves,' he. 


et sunt eunu- 
chi qui seipsos 

castrarunt 
propter regnum 
ccelorum, qui 
potest capax. 
esse, capiat. 
A. Mont. 
' potens." 


*There are 
some ' chaste, ' 

which have 
' made them- 
selves chaste. ' 


And there be 
1 eunuchs ' which 

have 4 made 
themselves eu- 
nuchs ' for the 
kingdom of 
heaven's sake. 
He that is able 
to receive (it,) 
let him receive 
(it.) 

(43; 



Marked thus * altered to the present reading J. D. 1611. 



42. Ol) 7T0LVT£$ yjjOgWTl* Ward does not more decidedly condemn the Protestant translation 
of this passage, which, he says, was made " against the profession of continency in priests, &c." than 
+Doctor Milner supports that of the Rhemists, as being, in his mind, " of no slight importance 
towards settling the dispute concerning the possibility of leading a continent life.*' But the defence of 
this, or the reprobation of that, translation, is of trifling avail, if not derived from, and warranted by, 
the original language. Our Lord, who knew what man was better than man himself, left no express 
general rule on the subject, which he would have done, could it possibly have been complied with. 



t Gussetius to ya^v ostendit in variis Unguis respondere iu S«»acr9*». Vid. Lex. Heb. 

F 



% Inquiry, page 346. 



S t A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



The Rhemish construction of, « w«m* "all men do not receive," does not substantially differ 

from the Protestant one, " all men cannot receive ;" and is resolvable into two distinct propositions : 
some men do, and some do not, receive, &c. Now, as to the persons who come under the latter 
description, no cause is assigned, why they " do not receive,' nor is any mention made of the possi- 
bility of their receiving ' the saying.' Indeed, such possibility cannot even be so much as inferred, in 
consequence of the words, o oW/^vo? x w e £,v x a ?" ru > which close the following verse. These words, 
then, (which the Rhemists render, " he that can take it, let him take it,") confirm the exactness 
of the Protestant translation of the others. They had been said to no purpose, if all men were able 
who wished it ; and if all who wished it obtained it : for in this case, our Lord would have said, all 
men do not receive this saying, but they who wish, let them receive it. 

Ward next quotes St. Augustine as saying, " whosoever have not this gift of chastity given them, 
it is either because they will not have it, or because they fulfil not that which they will." So far is 
this Father from advocating the continency of priests, or others, that a statement of his words will 
shew his meaning to be the reverse of what Ward asserts. Probably a more flagrant attempt to mis- 
represent the sense of an author is not any where else to be met with. The following is the passage 
alluded to : "*" All men do not receive this word, but they to whom it is given ; for they to whom it 
is not given, either they will not, or else they do not fulfil that which they will : but they to whom it 
is give?!, do so zvffi, that they fulfil that which they xoill.'' Here is nothing ambiguous ; it is clearly 
laid down, that it is not in the power of every man, who desires it, to be continent; but that it is the 
special gift of God, that any both feel the inclination and possess the ability of fulfilling it. The 
words marked in italics are omitted by Ward, upon which the sense of the entire passage turns, and 
these substituted: " and they that have this word, have it of God, and their own free-will.'' But 
what precludes the possibility of mistaking the Father's meaning, is the quotation heat the same time 
makes from the Book of Wisdom ; the authority of which will not be rejected by the popish doctors, 
as they consider it canonical scripture, f" And as I knew that I could not otherwise be continent, 
unless God gave it, this very thing also was wisdom, to know whose gift this was ; I went unto the 
Lord and prayed unto him." The reader can now decide, whether the Protestant translation, " all men 
cannot receive," be not the most correct. 

Having thus disposed of St. Augustine's opinion, it becomes necessary to advert to that of Origen, 
which, according to jWard, is comprised in the following few words ; viz. " this gift (of chastity) is 
given to all that ask for it." Here it may be enquired, if this Father were so convinced, why did not 
he himself ask for it; and why, if he thought he could keep the vow of perpetual chastity, had he 
recourse to the ||last extremities? These are questions, which, while they are not likely to receive an 
answer either from Doctor Milner, or any of his Irish ' Episcopal Brethren,' make the authority of Ori- 
gen on the subject go for nothing. For his conduct manifestly proved, that he considered the observance 
of the rule he prescribed to himself, as above man's power, otherwise he would not have violated it. 

* Non onines capiunt verbum hoc, sed quibus datum est : quibus enim non est datum, aut nolunt, aut non implent quod 
volunt ; quibus autem datum est, sic volunt, id impleant quod volunt. St. August. De lib. arb. cap. 4. 

f Wisd. ?iii. 21. Douay Bib. 1610. 
t Errata, page 53. j| See Mosh. Eccl. Hist. vol. i. page 287. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



35 



So that the popish doctors should be more reserved in bringing forward his testimony than that of all 
others ; inasmuch as it rather makes against, than for their cause. Ward's language in this article is 
justly reprehensible, as he converts a subject of deep seriousness, whether he intended it or not, into 
one of obscene levity. "Our Saviour's words," he says, do not justify the mutilating " those parts, 
which belong to generation, 5 ' in the popish clergy, which would be extremely sinful ; but to make 
" themselves impotent for generation, by promise and vow, which is a spiritual castration, &c." proh. 
pudor ! 

Jerome, too, although he in general strenuously contends for abstinence from marriage, says, 
*" that it is better to marry, than out of marriage to live incontinently; since they greatly sin who 
vow that which they cannot keep." So much for the opinions of those early writers. 

Now, as to the ftext so confidently brought forward by Doctor Milner, as contributing so much 
towards " settling the dispute concerning the possibility of leading a continent life,"' it may be 
observed, that, however extensive his information be in other respects, his knowledge of the Greek 
language appears to be rather of an imperfect nature. He says, that the Rhemish version, if they do 
not contain, "is according to the Greek as well as the Vulgate." It can only be ascribed to igno- 
rance to say it is according to the Greek, (?» h ax teyxpavevovrit,) since the verb, which is of the 
middle voice, is not made to convey an appropriate meaning ; — that of making the persons spoken of 
the object of their own actions. But to say it is according to the Latin text of the Vulgate, in which 
he is so well skilled, is unpardonable; as it proceeds from a disregard to truth. The Vulgate reading 
is, " si vero se non continent ;" which evidently imports the same meaning as the Greek. As, then, 
the Rhemish version takes no notice of se, it is incorrect, and being equally so, as has been shewn, 
when referred to the Greek, it is absurd to make it bear any such interpretation as that assigned it by 
Doctor Milner. 

The Protestant translation, " if they cannot contain,'' is but another form of expression for the 
more literal signification of the words — if they do not possess the government, or mastery, over 
themselves ; and is for that reason to be preferred. 

43. sLvVS^KTCtV £CWT%$. Ward, in his exposition of this text, says, that such are spoken of 
" as have made themselves Eunuchs for the kingdom of Heaven," by a vow of perpetual chastity. 
From this it appears he understands the passage in a figurative sense, the very reverse of that, which 
the || translation given it by the Rhemists in 1582 bears. He disclaims the literal sense of it in such 
indelicate terms, that to offer any thing by way of animadversion, in addition to what has been said 
in the preceding number, would but lead to that kind of discussion, which, on grave subjects, should 
eyer be avoided. 

Now that the Protestant and Popish versions are the same, it is not possible to deduce from them 
a single argument in favour of celibacy ; for, in the preceding verse, nothing imperative is contained; 
Our Lord simply observes, as he did before, that there are some men who have conquered the pro- 
pensities of nature, that they might the more effectually promote the interests of the gospel. But 
this, as has been before stated, is far from being a general rule laid down by him to be followed. 

* Epist. ad Demetr. t 1 Cor. v'u.Q. 

% From tyx^ccTviSi Having power over one's own inclinations.— Parkh, f| See Col, Riiem. Vers. 

F 2 



36 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



SECTION VII.— SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Drig. Greek. 


VUlgate Text. 


ElhemishVersion. 


Beza'sLatinText. 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBible iGii 


Acts xix. 3. 


I£t9»T£° 5' & 

E19S"0><, Et; TO 


In quo ergo 
baptizati es- 
tis ? qui dix- 
erunt, In Jo- 
hannis bap- 
tismate. 


In what then 
were you bap- 
tized? who said, 
In John's bap- 
tism. 


In quid ergo 
baptizati estis ■ 
ipsi ver6 dixe- 
runt, in Johan- 
nis baptisma. 


' unto what, ' 
&c. 

' unto ' John's 
baptism. 


' Unto what 
then were ye 
baptised ?' and 
they said, Unto 
John's baptism. 

(44) 


Tit. mi 5, 6. 


^«T^ou waTiiy- 
ytVEo-iar scat 

'Ov tf EX"* 
&C. 


. . salvos nos 
fecit per lava- 
crum regene- 
rations et re- 
novationis 
S. Sti. Quem 
effudit in nos 
abunde, &c. 


...he hath saved 
us; by the la ver 
of regeneration 
•and renovation 
of the Holy 
Ghost, whom 
he hath poured 
upon us abun- 
dantly, &c. 


. . . servavit nos 
per lavacrum 
regenerationis 
et 

renovationis 

Spiritus S. 
Quern effudit 
super nos co- 

piose, &c. 

A. Mont. 

' servavit.' 


*' By the foun- 
tain, ' &c. 

' which he shed 
on' us, &c. 


. . . He saved us, 
by the washing of 
regeneration, and 
renewing of the 
Holy Ghost ; 
which he shed on 

abnnrlfintlv 

through Jesus 
Christ, &c. 

• ! ';(45) 



Maried thus * altered to the present reading A. D. 1611. 



44. Ef£ Tt SV^ &c. §Ward ushers in this article with a charge which affords as convincing a 
proof of uncandid mis-statement, or of gross ignorance, or of both, as any to be met with in his 
work. He chooses to say, that Protestants have deprived the two sacraments which they retain " of 
all grace, virtue, and efficacy ;" because they did not consider them necessary to salvation, for the 
obtaining of which they held " that faith alone was sufficient." The doctrines of the Church of 
England give the most direct contradiction to these assertions. In her XXVII th Article, she thus 



§ Errata, page 55. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 37 

speaks : " By baptism, the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of 
God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed ; faith is confirmed ; and grace increased by 
virtue and prayer unto God." In her catechism, she makes specific mention of two sacraments as 
being " generally necessary to salvation." Her homilies and liturgy speak a similar language. Is this 
converting her two sacraments " into beggarly elements ;" stripping them of all grace ; or dispensing 
with them, as useless, in the work of salvation ? As to the expression 1 faith alone,' it will not 
appear surprising that it made the impression it did on Ward's mind, when it is considered that it was 
introduced into the eleventh article, and words of the same import into the homilies and liturgy, in 
opposition to the popish doctrine of human merit. The sense in which they are to be understood is 
admirably set forth by the Bishop of Lincoln in his late *publication, a work which will most amply 
repay the reader for his trouble in consulting it. 

Ward speaks of the insufficiency of John's baptism, and the great difference between it and 
Christ's. Now it appears, that Christ himself, when baptised, received no tother baptism than that of 
John. jSt Luke records a saying of St. Paul, which shews the value he placed on John's baptism ; 
and so far was he from annulling it, that he confirmed it by the imposition of hands. " Then," said 
Paul, " John truly baptised with the baptism of repentance, &c." And what strengthens the proof 
that his baptism was not inferior to Christ's, is that such as had been baptised by him were never re- 
baptised. For as Christ baptised none himself, it must follow, either that the Apostles were not at all 
baptised, or else, only baptised by John. Finally, if John was a minister of the gospel, and not of 
the law, then must his baptism be a sacrament of the New Testament, but if it differ from the bap- 
tism of Christ, then are there two baptisms of the New Testament, contrary to what is declared 
in the §Nicene Creed. 

The learned || Doddridge, it is true, affirms, that numbers who had received, the baptism of 
John, " probably afterwards received Christian baptism." But, with all due respect for such high 
authority, is, or ought, probability to be deemed sufficient grounds to go on, in determining a ques- 
tion of this nature ? Indeed, the utmost it amounts to is a possibility, that any of the persons, 
spoken of by ^[St. Matthew, were included among St. Peter's auditors, as mentioned in several pas- 
sages in the **Acts. The most that this would go to establish would be, that a difference did exist 
between the baptism of John and that of Christ; but not that any insufficiency, or any inferiority, 
existed in the former, compared with the latter, for the reasons already stated. 

As to the translation of »?, it is perfectly immaterial whether it be " in," or " into." It creates no 
difference in the sense whether e<? to ow>p* be rendered ' in the name,' or 'into the name;' as ' into 
the name of the Father, Son, &c.' is of the same import with the reading ' in the name of the 
Father, &c.' At the time Ward produced ' into,' when given as a translation of a( 3 as an error, it 
seems he was not aware that, in the ttEpistle to the Ephesians, Jerome rendered, si? wa» to ^m^u, in 
omnem plenitudinem ; and the Rhemists ' unto all the fulness, &c." 

45. AiOC A87£8. Here is another blemish pointed out by Ward, and which, no doubt, is looked 

* Refutation of Calvinism, ch. iii. f St. Matt. iii. 13. { Acts xix. 4. 

§ " One baptism for the remission of sins, &c." 
J| Expositor, vol. iii. page 281 1f iii. 5, 6. ** ii. 33. 41. iv. 4. and vi. 7. It iii. 19. 



58 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



on by Dr. Milner, and his ' Episcopal Brethren/ as a glaring corruption. But an attentive considera- 
tion of the passage will disprove the charge of misconstruction in the Protestant Bible. The Greek of 
« laver' is amu?, which is not the term used by St. Paul, for if it were, he would have said 
The term he did adopt, viz. terpv, imports a bath, washing, &c. 

According to the Rhemish version, is * poured upon ;' and, according to the Protestant one, 
' shed on.' Here the difference is so inconsiderable, that either interpretation may as well be said to 
be levelled against the rite of baptism as the other. What the faith and practice of the Church of 
England is in this particular, has been so explicitly declared, in the article immediately preceding, that 
it is almost superfluous to repeat, that she considers baptism no less a sacrament than the Church of 
Rome. Such a declaration, however, seems in a manner called for, in consequence of the assertion 
made by Ward, with equal impudence and falsehood, that Protestants have made Baptism, and the 
Supper of the Lord, by depriving them of all efficacy, and reducing them to " poor and beggarly 
elements, at the most, no better than those of the Jewish law." 



SECTION VIII.— CONFESSION AND SACRAMENT OF PENANCE. 



Book Ch.Ver. 


rig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza'sLatinText 


Bps. Bible, 1568 


rC.James'sBible 1611 


Jam. v. l6. 


•no.^a.'KTwy.x-rct 
&LC. 


confitemini 
ergo alter 
utrum pec- 
cata vestra. 


confess 
therefore 
your sins one 
to another. 


confitemini alii 
aliis offensas, 
&c. 
A. Mont. 
' alii aliis offen- 
siones.' 


* ' Acknow 
ledge ' your 
' faults,' &c. 


Confess (your) 
; faults ' one to 
mother, &c. 

(46) 



Marked thus * altered to the present reading A. D. 1611. 



46. ria£(X7r/60jUa. This word is best rendered by fault, and is opposed to ^« ? r<«, which 
implies sin. It is not, however, on it that the principal stress must be laid, but on ax^o.?, which dis- 
tinctly points out the Apostle's meaning. Pie is enjoining mutual confession, (" vobis invicem" to use 
the words of Erasmus, f< non sacerdotibus,'') which overturns the doctrine of auricular confession, i. e. 
confession to the priest ; it being as obligatory on the priest to confess to the layman, as for the layman 
to confess to the priest. Besides, it supersedes all pretences to that priestly power exercised by the 
popish clergy over the laity of their communion. And as to the word ' acknowledge,' which was 
adopted by the first Protestant translators, it clearly signifies nothing different from ' confess,' the read- 
ing of their successors. 



t Lapsus, offensa, erratum. Scap. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1GU. 



39 



But, says *Ward, " if this acknowledging of faults one to another, before death, be indifferently 
made to all men, why do they appoint, in their Common Prayer Book, that the sick person shall 
make a special confession to the minister, and that he shall absolve them, &c. ?" Now, in the order 
prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer, for the visitation of the sick, he only is "moved to make 
a special confession of his sins," who " feels his conscience troubled with any weighty matter," that he 
may receive spiritual comfort from the minister, who possesses authority, in God's name, to remit his 
sins, as well as the sins of those who are in health. But it does not hence follow, that confession is a 
sacrament; if it did, preaching also should be considered one; inasmuch as by it, the people, who 
believe, are, through the ministry of the preacher, absolved from their sins. To constitute what he 
calls' sacramental confession,' it should have an outward sign to represent the inward grace of the 
remission of sins ; of which requisite it is totally destitute. In their annotations on this very text, 
the Rhemists express themselves with some hesitation, evidently considering it as one not very favour- 
able to them. " It is not certain," they observe, " that he (St. James) speaketh here of sacra- 
mental confession, yet the circumstances of the letter well beareth it, and very probable it is that he 
meaneth of it.'' Ward, however, and his abettors of the present day, speak on the subject in the dogma- 
tical language of their Church. They represent confession as essential to the pardon of sin, and as having 
an intimate connexion with a Sacrament ; and the priest as having power to prescribe conditions of ab- 
solution ! That this is, however, but a modern doctrine, not having been received into the Church of 
Rome before the time of flnnocent III. A. D. 1215, and that it does not convey the sentiments of 
the primitive church, inasmuch as secret, auricular, sacramental confession was altogether unknown 
to it, may be proved by a brief statement of the means it took to enforce its authority, and maintain 
its purity. 

First, then, the nature of the confession enjoined by the Apostle is but that directed by Our 
Saviour himself, J" agree with thine adversary quickly, &c." a confession to the person injured, and 
not a general one. On this principle the ancient church seems to have grounded her discipline, as 
the early ecclesiastical w r riters, Origen, Chrysostom, and Basil, censured all private confession of sins 
to men, from its liability to abuse, and recommended it to be made only to God. In the case of 
apostates, it certainly imposed severities, by enjoining a public confession of their offence. It after- 
wards relaxed, by admitting, first, a private confession, and then a private atonement. In the eighth 
century, masses, alms, &c. were substituted ; and towards the thirteenth, when the Church of Rome 
had reduced the minds of men under her yoke, her Pontiff made auricular confession an imperative 
duty, and, to strengthen the delusion, called it a sacrament. Since that period, it has been a fruitful 
source of gain to her clergy, and the encourager, if not the parent, of every violation of law, whether 
human or divine, wherever popery predominates. But were there no other objection to the existence 
of this infamous practice, an insuperable one would arise from its tendency to violate the sanctity of 
virgin innocence; for that woman, who reveals every trifling occurrence, must necessarily have loose 
principles of virtue ; while it is equally as certain, that the confessor himself cannot long retain a purity 
of mind. It is a physical impossibility that he should, and contradictory to man's knowledge of his 
fellow-creatures. 



* Errata, page 57. 
t Mosh. Eccl. Hist. Vol. ill. page 244. 



J Matt. c. v. v. 25. 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



Book. Ch. Ver. ( 


)rig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. I 


ihemishVersion. ] 


ieza's Latin Text ] 


5ps. Bible, 1568.1 


C.James'sBibleiGn 


Mat. xi. 21, ' 

and 
Luke x. 13., 

< 


OTJ EJ Ell Tvf><J , 

Sec. waAai av 
i/ truxxtji "at 

rTTO^W ^ETEW 

! 
< 


quia, si in 1 
Tyro, &c. 1 
)lim in cili 
;io et cinere 
jasnitentiam 
sgissent. 


'or if in Tyre, i 
fee. they had i 
done penance 5 

in sackcloth 
and ashes 
ong ere now. 
The Rhemish 
Test, first edit. 

1582. hair- 
cloth. 


iam si in Tyro, 
kc. olim cum 1 
acco et cinere 
sedentes) resi- 
puissent. 
A. Mont. 
in sacco etc. 
pcenituissent. 


they ' would 
lave repented.' 


they £ would 
have repented ' 
long ago in 
sackcloth and 
ashes. 

(47) 


Mat. iii. 2. 


^•yyiXE yctf> 1 
@xcriXzicc ruin 
Sextos, 


Paenitentiam 
agite, appro- 

pinquabit 
enim regnum 

ccelorum. 
The Sixtine 
Clem. edit. 
appropinqua- 
vit. 


Do penance, 
for the king- 
dom of heaven 
is at hand. 


Resipiscite, 
Appropinquavit 
enim regnum 
ccelorum. 

A. Mont. 
pcenitemini, &c. 
appropinquavit. 


f Repent, ' 8cc. 


' Repent ye,' for 
the kingdom of 
heaven is at hand. 

(48) 


Luke iii. 3. 


x.v)(>v(7aav ffecn- 
liO-jAX fAsrcinoixt;. 


praedicans 
baptismum 
paenitentias. 


preaching the 
baptism of pe- 
nance. 


pradicans bap- 
tismum resipis- 
centias. 


' of repentance, 
&c. 


nrpfl rhino* 

baptism of re- 
pentance. 

(49) 


Ibid. iii. 8. 


TlomffxTe cvv 
t>i; ftETa»<na;. 


facite ergo 
fructus dig- 
nos paeniten 
tiae. 


yieiu. tnereiore 
fruits worthy of 
penance. 


ferte igitur 
fructus conve- 
nientes resipis- 
centiae. 


'of repentance,' 
&c. 


Bring forth, 
therefore, fruits 
worthy ' of re- 
pentance.' (50) 


Acts ii. 38. 


IIeT^o; h E(pi 
M£T<"voi)0-aTE 


i Petrusveroac 
illos, pasni- 

y tentiam (in- 
quit) agite, 
baptizetur, 
&c. 


But Peter saic 
to them, Do 
penance, and 

Uc cvci y \J kj 

you baptized, 
&c. 


Petrus autem 
ait ad eos, Re 
sipiscite et bap 
tizetur unus- 
quisque, 8cc. 
A. Mont. 
pcenitemini. 


< Repent.' 
&c. 


Then Peter said 
unto them. 

c Repent,' and be 
baptized, &c. 

(51) 



47, 



51. MSTOfOJOU To what other cause, than the deepest and most interested 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611, 



41 



bigotry, can it be assigned that the popish doctors persist in asserting, in opposition to the literal 
meaning, and strict acceptation of the Greek word, that their version of it, in this and the succeeding 
numbers, is the most correct, ^utrama. mean penance, or mortification of the body! A word, in its 
primary and natural signification, which implies only that thorough change of mind, which brings with 
it sorrow for the past, and purposes of amendment for the future ; neither of which feelings may 
accompany thoseoutward expressions, which the Church of Rome looks on, as an all-sufficient atonement, 
for all sins whatever. Indeed, so light did the Latin Fathers of the middle ages make of the admo- 
nition to repentance, that they considered it to consist, not only in oral confession, but in a mere 
groan ! Their language was, " si ingemueris, salvaberis" 

Ward observes, " as for penance, or satisfaction for sins, they (viz. Protestants) utterly deny it, 
upon the heresy of faith only justifying and saving a man." It has been already stated, in what 
sense the Church of England understands the words c faith only.' They occur in her public Formu- 
laries, and imply that true and lively faith, which necessarily produces good works. They deny, 
indeed, the pretended merit of works as satisfying God for sin, but do not deny the necessity of 
works, as a condition of salvation. ( He then proceeds to say, "our English bibles, to this day, dare not 
venture on the word Penance, but only Repentance; which is not only far different from the Greek 
word, but even from the very circumstances of the text, as is evident from those of St. Matt. xi. 21, 
and St. Luke x. 13, where these words, sackcloth and ashes, cannot but signify more than the 
word repentance, or amendment of life, can denote ; as is plain from the words of St. Basil — Sack- 
cloth makes for penance ; for the Fathers, in old time, sitting in sackcloth and ashes, did penance." 
The passages in the Gospels alluded to, neither directly, nor by implication, prove that the words* 
'sackcloth and ashes,' imply any satisfaction to God for the sins of the life past. They but shew, that 
that perfect change of mind, and total abandonment of evil habits, expressed by ^rama, were testified 
by those external signs. A great injustice is done to St. Basil in making him an advocate for penance, 
when he but points out the use and end of wearing sackcloth. His words are, Sackcloth is an 
helper towards repentance, being a sign of humiliation; for, formerly the Fathers repented, sitting 
in sackcloth and ashes." It may be observed, that Ward entirely omits the words marked in italics, 
upon which the sense of the passage depends. 

But, continues §he, " do not St. John the Baptist and St. Paul plainly signify penitential works, 
when they exhort us to do fruits worthy of penance ?" The question is not, whether sorrow, for that 
is admitted on all hands, but whether satisfaction, be a part of repentance. ' : The fruits meet for 
repentance" argue it to be real, and without dissimulation; but do not at all prove, that any atone- 

* To the perverted interpretation of this term may be ascribed the rise of that fanatical sect in Italy, denominated Flagellants, 
about the thirteenth century. They inflicted on their naked bodies the severest punishments ; and all this, says the historian, 
" with a view to obtain the divine mercy for themselves and others, by their voluntary mortification and penance." Mosh. EccL 
Hist. vol. ill . page 245. 

f Errata, page 57. . ' 

+ XwE^yo; £ k (/.sTavoiaii o ca.Y.%0% [yxmntu<reu$ intu^yuv avfjt&ohov.'] •Tia.ha.i ya,g an ev aouvxa 01 7r«TgE$ xcu airo^ia xaQwpziioi u.srmwap. ©per, 
St. Basil, in Psal. x.xix. 

§ Errata, page 57. 
G 



42 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



ment is thereby offered for sins previously committed. The fruits required are *" post factum sapere 
et de errore admisso ita dolere, ut corrigas ;" or as it is, in tSt. Paul's writings, emphatically expressed, 
"the being renewed in the spirit of the mind." 

Ward next asserts that all the ancient Fathers understood the Greek word " to signify penance, 
and doing penance." A few quotations from their writings will convince the reader, that this is not the 
fact. +Tertullian considers the Greek word to imply not "confession of an offence, but changing of the 
mind." §Hilarius thus expresses himself, " peccati paenitentia est, ab eo quod paenitendum intellexe- 
ris, destitisse." J] St. Augustin understands the phrase not only to imply the exercise of public peni- 
tents, but also the inward repentance of the heart. 1ISt. Ambrose, " I read of his tears, (viz. St. 
Peter's) but not of his satisfaction." And, lastly, St. **Athanasius says, " unam* is so called, because 
it transfers the mind from evil to good.'' Numbers of later writers might be instanced, who expound 
it in the same Way. Of these, Aretas, a commentator of the tenth century, thus expresses himself: 
-hf" Mewoia is a change from worse to better." From all these it may be inferred, that what Ward 
calls ' penitential works,' however they might serve as a testimony of sorrow, and as such might re- 
concile the Church to those who had offended her; they could be no 'satisfaction for sins,' which no 
sacrifice, but that of the Lamb of God, was capable of taking away. It consequently follows, 
that satisfaction is no part of repentance. 

The Vulgate furnishes internal evidence, that the author of it never designed to express more than 
one thing, viz. repentance, by his translation of the Greek word. As a proof of this, he renders it 
pccnitcntiam agite in J+one Gospel, and in §§another pcenitemini. The Rhemists rendered the former 
text "do penance," and the latter "be penitent," or " repent." The difference of construction, there- 
fore, which they have observed, is not warranted by the Vulgate Latin ; still less by the Greek. For, 
in both places, but one thing is enjoined to be done, and but one reason assigned why it should be 
done, — that of the kingdom of Heaven being at hand. 

In the Acts, and in the Hlfsecond Epistle to Timothy, pcenitentiam is the Vulgate reading, and 
' repentance,' that of the Rhemish Testament. But why should they not render it ' penance,' if, 
as the Popish Expositors say, the terms repentance, and penance be synonymous ? If the Rhemists 
understood them to imply the same thing, why did they not translate the passage thus, — that God 
had exalted Christ, " a Prince and a Saviour, for to give penance," instead of "for to give repentance T* 
Again, in the Old Testament, the Douay doctors translate a passage in *#*orie of the Prophets, 
agat panitentiam, "doth penance;" and immediately after fj-fpcenitentiatn egerit, 'shall repent:' 
although God speaks of sinners in the one place, as well as in the other. As they affect to be guided by 
Jerome, they cannot avail themselves of the circumstance, that he made his translation, not from two 
different inflexions of the same verb, as before; but from quite I+tdifferent verbs, as may be seen by 
referring to the Ixx. Greek. And, lastly, the Vulgate reading in §§§Wisdom is panitentiam agentes, 
which they render ' repenting.' But, why not translate it, ' doing penance/ as well as, ' do penance,' 
in the above quoted text from Jeremiah ? After all this, it is not possible that Doctor Milner, or any 

* Vid. Pol. Synops. in loc. -j- Eph. c. iv. v. 23. % Contra Marc. 

§ Oper. Hilar, in Psal. cxxxvii. || Horn, xxvii. In Luc. lib. x. c. 22. 

** Aia raro AE^ETai /x£Ta»oia, gti pneiTibtc-i ton wv euro ts xz/.s 7T£o; to ayaSor. Quest. 133. de parab. 
ft Merxwu eft ^ETa<-«c-i; am Tut yj\(Qiut, xai ^/atoSoM tiri to /3{Atw. In Apocal, C 3. 
Matt. c. iii. v. 2. §§ Mark, c. i. v. 15. C. v. v. 31. and c. xi. v. 1 S. H C. ii. v. 25. 

*** Jer. e. viii. v. 6. ftt Ibid, c. xviii. v. 8. %%% zmrgtyu and metwwew. C. v. v. 3. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 161 1. 



43 



of his £ episcopal brethren,' will, in future, venture to assert, that met«»o.o. is mistranslated by 4 repen- 
tance' in the Protestant Bible ; or deny, that their own English version is shaped so as to answer a 
particular purpose, and that a distinction is preserved in it between penance, which men are forced by 
their Church to perform, and repentance, which is the gift of God. 

It is not improper to add, that where sorrow is to be expressed, pcenitentia is very fitly used ; thus 
when the Evangelist speaks of Judas"s sorrow, he adopts *fumyo*«fci< (and not pnxm&u;,) which in the 
Vulgate is rendered ? pcenitentia ductus.' It is evident, then, that the strict propriety of rendering 
pcravoi* by resipiscentia, is confirmed ; and by ' repentance' equally so, since the English language does 
not contain another more comprehensive, nor a more suitable term, expressive of the original : and that 
e penance' is a word entirely unwarranted. 

In the preceding number, the rise and progress of auricular confession, and the pernicious con- 
sequences attending it, have been briefly detailed. It is here proper to take a similar view of that 
doctrine with which it is intimately connected. On a commutation of penance taking place, instead of 
the ancient severities of the Church, a milder discipline was substituted. Among the poor, so many 
paters sufficed for so many days of fasting; while the rich bought off their penance by alms. Theo- 
dore of Tarsus, afterwards promoted to the See of Canterbury, first published a f Penitential, or sort 
of registry, in which the degree and the description of penance which was attendant on each offence, 
were accurately defined. In it was pointed out, not only the procedure with respect to the penitent, 
but likewise the duty of the confessor himself. This new discipline, although it soon became general 
among the clergy of the Latin Churches, was but of transitory duration, as in the eighth century it 
fell into disuse, and finally gave way to a still newer one — the canon of indulgences. In establishing 
this, the Church of Rome not only departed from the gospel doctrine of repentance, but destroyed 
the ancient ecclesiastical discipline of penance, and thereby threw open the door to every kind of 
immorality and vice. The chief agents at first concerned in the scandalous traffic of indulgences were 
of the episcopal order. The Sovereign Pontiff, however, did not long continue indifferent to their 
proceedings, since he assumed the exclusive power of remitting penalties. The Court of Rome 
having thus become the grand emporium of indulgences, it published both an universal and a plenary 
remission of all penalties; nay, it impiously pretended to dispense with those punishments which are 
designed as a retribution for guilty sinners in a future state. This daring innovation was followed up 
in the succeeding century by new articles of faith, which tended to confirm and extend the papal 
power. And Pope Innocent III. A. D. 1215, instead of reforming the abuses which existed in the 
Church, increased their number ; and, aided by the Fourth Council of Lateran, laid the foundation 
of all those corruptions and superstitions, which continue in the Church of Rome to this day, to 
obscure the lustre, and disfigure the beautiful simplicity of the gospel. It should not be forgotten, 
that the shameless abuse practised in granting pardons for sin, and the matchless impudence of 
Tetzel, who proclaimed the absolving power of the Pope to extend to all punishments present and 
future, were causes chiefly instrumental in bringing about the Reformation. 

* Matt. c. xxvii. v. 3. Beza on this text observes, " nec enim resipiscit, qnemcunque pssnitet, sed caepe in detenus ruit." He 
renders the Greek word peenitens. It may be added that the //.Bra^Xcia. which Judas felt was too late ; this cannot be said of 
l^BTuvoia, which is always taken in a good sense. 

•f Gibbon says, " a year of penance was appreciated at about four pounds sterling for the rich, and nine shillings for the indi- 
gent." Like Mosheim, he then shews how the unscriptural doctrine of supererogation, &c. and the military ardour of the cru- 
sades, sprang out of this dispensing power of the church. See Decl. and Fall, vol. ii. page 18. And also, the Appendix to 
this work, Article VIII. for an extract taken from A. Egan's Table of Indulgences. 

G 2 



44 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



SECTION IX.— THE HONOUR OF THE BLESSED LADY AND THE OTHER SAINTS. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 



Orig. Greek. 



Luke i. 28. 



Vulsrate Text. 



Ave, gratiii 
plena, Domi- 
nus tecum. 



RhemishVersion, 



Mat. i. 25. 



ctvTriv, &C...xai 
£X«?IE<7£. TO 01/OjJ.Z 

avTU IH20YN. 



Hail, full of 
grace, our Lord 
is with thee. 
A late edition 
reads, 
the Lord.' 



Beza's Latin Text 



Ave, gratis di 
lecta : Domi- 
nus tecum est. 



Bps. Bible,. 1568, 



et non cog 
noscebateam 
&c. et vocavit 
nomen ejus 
Jesum. 



And he knew 
her not, &c 
and ' called ' 
his name Jesus. 

Some late 
editions read, 
" he called." 



Genesis iii. Avntm ^ 



15. 



1 thou art in 
high favour.' 



K.James'sBibleiGu 



Hail, (thou that 
art) highly 
favoured, the 
Lord (is) with 
thee, &c. 



et non cogno- and 

vit earn, &c. 
vocavitque ejus 
nomen Iesum. 



he called,' 
&c. 



Ipsa conteret 
caput tuum, 
et tu insidia- 
beris calca- 
neo ejus. 
Pagninus 
reads, ' ipsum 

(win) 
conteret tib 
caput, et tu 
conteres ei 
calcaneum. 



She shall bruise 
thy head in 
pieces, and thou 
shalt lie in wait 
of (Ward reads, 
for) her heel. 



And knew her 
not till she had 
brought forth her 
first-born son: and 
he called ' his 
name Jesus. 

(53) 



'It' shall 
bruise thy head, 
and thou shalt 
bruise his heel. 



It ' shall bruise 
thy head, and 

thou shalt bruise 

his heel. 

(54) 



*52. Ks^Ot^TWpSJ^e The Protestant Translators are charged with mistranslating this word, 
*■ p/efgiTow. gratia officio, facio ut aliquis sit acceptus. Seap. Heeler: Schrav. Lex. To be favoured, highly favoured. Parkh. Lex. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 45 

although they have rendered it agreeably to its literal and received meaning. Their version does not 
certainly countenance a worship being paid to the Virgin Mother, superior to that even of God the 
Father. But, if it do not, it is because the language, which has been made the medium of the divine 
will, does not warrant it ; which, without encouraging a blind and stupid veneration for the blessed 
Virgin, conveys a full and distinct declaration of her being a distinguished favourite of Heaven. 
Protestants have accordingly always considered her to be blessed, acceptable, nay, full of grace, and 
have denied her no honour, which does not derogate from that due to God. They, in fact, allow her 
to have been endued with all gracious gifts, as much as mortal creature could be, except Christ, whose ' 
peculiar privilege was that of being free from sin. But such blasphemous titles as those enumerated 
by fWard are justly refused to her. Some of them, it is true, present no idea at all to the minds of 
the learned ; yet, what absurd notions may be attached to them in the minds of the ignorant ! The 
use of such appellations, therefore, when not found in Scripture, must undoubtedly be injurious to 
true religion. 

jWard asks, " why they translate §' full of sores,' and will not translate ^x^ru^tm (gratiosa) 

'full of grace?' seeing that all such adjectives in osus signify fulness, as periculosus, cerumnosus, &c." 
If there were in the English language such a participle as sored, it might have been adopted as the 
translation of ^.x^em?, as favoured is of xe^t^evu. No person ever thought of rendering ^xe,^^-^, 
full of gold, rather than gilt, or any other similar Greek word, which could be translated into English 
by a participle. Athanasius says, all those graces and gifts were 'freely' given her, and not vouch- 
safed her on the score of her own merits. Protestants require neither more nor less. 

53. " Again," says Ward, " to take from the Holy Mother of God what honour they can, they 
translate, that he (viz. Joseph) called his name Jesus." As the question is, — whether Joseph or Mary 
gave the child Jesus his name, — it is not difficult of decision. First, it is clear from the context; as 
the same person is naturally pointed out in the text under consideration, who is spoken of in the verse 
immediately preceding, with which it is connected. Secondly, it was more usual for the man, than for 
the woman, to give the name. And, lastly, a little before, in the same chapter, Joseph is said to 
have received a command, as to the name which was to be given to the child : % u and thou shalt call his 
name Jesus.'' From all which it may be collected, that the Evangelist meant Joseph rather than 
Mary. It is, however, a matter of most perfect indifference, which reading is adopted — ' he called,' or 
• she called :' for, supposing Mary to be meant, still it gives her no claim to adoration ; neither does 
the use of ' he' establish the charge of mistranslation. 

54. A.VT0$ 0*8 T^^jCTSi. Pagninus renders Nin ipsum, referring it to semen, which read- 
ing Montanus approves. In the Vulgate text, quoted by Ward, it is ipsa, on which is partly founded 
the argument used by the Romanists, that the Virgin Mary should be worshipped. And by applying 
the prophecy to her alone, they are naturally led to fftaddress her as they do in their service. But the 
absurdity of the application is manifest, for, on the same grounds, the term ipsa points out Eve, Sarah, 
Rebecca, he. as bruising the serpent's head, as well as Mary ; Christ's lineage being through them, 

f Viz. The Holy Mother of God, Ever-shining Lamp, Crown of Purity, &c. &c. &c. Errata, page 59. 
+ Ibid. §. Luke, c. xvi. v. 20. || Rhem. Transl. gilt in Rev. c. xvii. v. iv, and c. xviii. v. 10. 

5 Matt. c. i. v. 21. ** Alii legunt ni^cm. 

ttt Viz. By thee, the Holy Trinity is every where blessed and adored ; Queen of Heaven j &c. &c. See note f on No. 52.. 



46 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 

Most of the old Latin copies have ipse ; for of twenty-eight, by which Hentenius revised the 
Vulgate version, he discovered ipsa to be the reading only of two. In the year 1589, P°P e Sixtus 
Ouintus himself directed ipse to be restored. The Seventy use although the substantive 

(scil. <rjre§f*«) to which it refers is neuter ; a circumstance which not unfrequently happens in Greek 
writings. This change in the gender of the pronoun is strongly exemplified in tSt. Luke's Gospel, 
and may be met with, even in profane jauthors. When, therefore, the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin 
languages, but particularly the first, authorise the Protestant translation of ]6ll, viz. it, as referring 
to the seed, i. e. Christ, is it not strange that the Romish clergy should impute error where none 
exists, and obstinately stand out as the abettors of a doctrine, which not only disgraces the page of 
Holy Writ, but the learning and sense of an enlightened age ? 

Ward refers his readers to the annotations on this passage in the Douay Bible, as sufficient to 
shew that the Popish doctors " attribute no more, or no less to Christ, or to his Mother, by this read- 
ing or by that." But this is the very thing which Protestants condemn, since, as has been already 
observed, it is blasphemous to ascribe that to the Mother of Christ, which is peculiar to himself. 

Of the Fathers, who, §Ward says, read ipsa, St. Ambrose's authority is uncertain, by reason of 
the defectiveness of the Greek copy, whence he derived his translation ; St. Augustin refers it to the 
Church ; and him St. Gregory follows. So that St. Bernard alone, who is comparatively a late writer, 
expounds it as a prophecy of the Virgin Mary. 

It was not before the fourth century, that the Virgin Mary first received a formal worship. In the 
fifth, her image was received into churches, and obtained the most distinguished place. Towards the 
beginning of the tenth, her worship became perfectly idolatrous, and, in the latter part of the same 
age, masses were celebrated, and abstinence from flesh observed for her sake. At this period, too, a 
new description of worship was invented, called the || Rosary and Crown. Her dignity received a 
still further augmentation in the twelfth century, by a fiction relating to her immaculate conception, 
and the festival which was instituted in honour of it. Since that period, the hyperdulia, an inter- 
mediate sort of worship between what is due only to God, and that offered to the other saints, has 
been introduced, in consequence of some new perfections found in her. And so late as the beginning 
of the last century, Clement XI. appointed a festival to be celebrated throughout the Romish Church, 
similar to that of the twelfth century. Such has been the origin and growth of all those idolatrous 
practices, and that senseless superstition, so far as relates to the Virgin Mother, which so largely 
contribute to make the Church of Rome corrupt and degenerate: the respect which was, at the outset, 
shewn her, growing into reverence, and that, at length, degenerating into positive worship. So that 
the Reformers have, on the justest grounds, protested against the doctrines of that church in this 
particular, as being **vainly invented, and grounded on no warrant of scripture, but 

RATHER REPUGNANT TO THE WORD OF GoD. 

f In c. viii. v. 5, 6, 7, 8. 5 and Irt^v refer to a-m^, which is masculine. 
+ e. g. " Ubi illic scelus est, qui me perdidit ? Ter. Andr. Act iii. § Errata, page 50. 

|| The Rosary consists in fifteen repetitions of the Lord's prayer, and one hundred and fifty salutations of the blessed Virgin ; 
■while the Crown consists in six or seven repetitions of the Lord's prayer, and six or seven times ten salutations, or Ave Marias. 
Mosh. Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. page 420. The use of beads, so general among Romanists, for the purpose of counting their 
prayers, evidently originated in this institution. 

Article xxiii. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 47 



Book. Ch. Ver 


Orig. Greek 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps.Bible, 1568. 


K. James'sBible i6n 


2 Pet. i. xv. 


'tx.cx.rore 
■wren fj.rni*nv 


Dabo autem 
operam et 
frequenter 
habere vos 
post obitum 
meum, ut 
horum me- 
moriamfacia- 
tis. 'Horum 
omnium * is 

found in 
Sixtus Vth's. 
Bible. 


And I will do 
my endeavour ; 
you to have 
often after my 

decease also, 
that you may 
keep a memory 
of these things. 


Sed et studebo 
ut vos subinde 
post exitum 
meum possitis 
horum men- 
tionem facere. 
Mont, reads 
studebo, &c. 
and facere. 


... to have 
these things 
' always in re- 
membrance.' 


Moreover, I will 
endeavour that ye 
may be able after 
my decease to 
have these things 
always in 'remem- 
brance.' (55) 


Psal. cxxxix. 
17- 


<r «'(TJ'*i)°^ <)?j 

Qrio-etv ' a,i a.Q- 
yu.\ ctvruv.' 


Mihi autem 
nimis hono 
rificati sunt 
amici tui, 
Deus ; nimis 
confortatus 
est principa- 
ls eorum. 

Pagn. et 
mihi quam 
pretiosas 
fuerunt (yv^) 
cogitationes 
tua;, Deus : 


But to me, thy 
friends, O God, 
are become ho 

nourable ex- 
ceedingly, their 
' principality' is 

exceedingly 

strengthened. 
Ward uses 

princedom. 


Mont, renders 

>tt>iO 

(in reg.) capita. 
Pagn. summce. 


How dear are 
thy councils 

to "me ? O ! 
how great is 

the ' sum ' of 
them ! 


How precious 
also are thy 
' thoughts ' unto 
me, O Godl how 
great is the 'sum' 
of them ! (56) 



55. MvYlftr\V 7r0lSl<rda.l. *Ward adduces this text in support of the doctrine of the " inter- 
cession of saints and in cases like the present, where " St. Peter speaks so ambiguously, either that 
he will remember them after his death, or that they shall remember him," he would have a certain 
latitude of expression allowed translators. So much admitted by this Popish Champion, as that the 
passage yields a double meaning, is an additional proof of the slight grounds on which he occasionally 
censures. Now, as to the sense he attaches to it, the matter stands thus : St. Peter, knowing his 
death to be at hand, would have said to no purpose, that he would exercise 'his earnest endeavours' 
(which the verb nmiefr implies) in behalf of those he addressed, if it were in his power equally to use 



* Errata, page 59, 



48 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



them after his death : besides, even if it could be hence inferred, that the saints intercede with God 
for men, there is nothing in the text whatever to warrant the practice of praying to them. If the 
Protestant interpretation be now contrasted with the foregoing, it will be seen on which side the 
advantage lies. It is briefly this; that he would, during his life-time, so thoroughly instruct them, 
and so deeply impress his doctrine on their minds, that', even after his decease, the remembrance of it 
should not be effaced. In this light *Grotius viewed the matter, when he thus expounded St. Peters 
meaning : " Cum sentiam brevi me moriturum, ita altc, hoc volo injigi vestris animis, ut non possitis, 
nec post meam mortem, non scepe eorum recordari" 

Ward says, that some of the Greek Fathers concluded from this text, " that the saints in 
heaven remember us on earth, and make intercession for us." It' is well that he has qualified his 
observation with the word ' some ;' but had he at the same time acknowledged, that they who are 
comprehended under this term, some, did not flourish before the end of the fourth, or beginning of the 
fifth century, he would, at least, have had the credit of being candid. Up to that period, it is certain 
that the custom of invoking saints, as intercessors, was unknown: for, fTertullian says that, in his 
time, the church prayed to God alone. Jlrenajus condemned it as an heresy, that men called upon 
angels. And §Augustine, who lived, by two centuries, later than either of these, says, " dead men 
ought to be so honoured that we may imitate them, but ought not to be worshipped.'' 

The word ^omnium, which was added to this text by Sixtus V. was suppressed by Clemens VIII. 
The insertion, or omission of it, is, to be sure, of little consequence; yet it is sufficient to shew how 
discordant the opinions of those celebrated Popes were, as to the reading of the Vulgate text, and, at 
the same time, the absurdity of their pretensions to infallibility. 

56. T!jn- 01 <pi7\0l (T8. The difference between the Protestant and Douay versions of this 
passage is very remarkable ; and yet so little does either bear on the contested point, that the one may , 
with as much propriety be said to establish the adoration of the saints as the other. That the meaning 
is forced, as it stands in the Popish bible, is evident for the following reasons: First, if trans- 

lated ' friends,' and not c thoughts,' or ' counsels,' which it equally signifies, would ill accord with 
the conclusion of the verse, where summa, or (as **Montanus renders it) caput, occurs. Next, 
from the nature of the subject treated of by the inspired penman : He is enlarging on the marvellous 
texture of the human frame, and on the all-seeing providence of God; but before he concludes, he is 
represented, according to the Douay version, as making a most unnatural digression, to celebrate the 
friends of God. And, lastly, it will follow, that the Protestant translation of the disputed passage is to 
be preferred, since, by it, the transition from celebrating the works of God, to an admiration of his 
counsels, becomes easy and unaffected. It will not have escaped the reader's notice, that ttPagninus's 

* Vid. Pol. Synops. in loc. t Apol. c. xxx. + Lib. ii.c. 58. 

§ De ver. relig. cap. 55. 

S See James's Papal War for abundant proof of the contradictory meanings elicited from the word of God, by the additions, 
suppressions, and alterations of the Vulgate Latin, made by the above-named Popes, in their respective editions of the bible, 
^j" 'tfi masc. plur. in Reg. Pastoral cares, attentions as of a Shepherd for his flock. Parkh. 
** See col. Beza's Latin Text. ft See col. Vulgate Text. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



■43 



translation agrees with that of the Protestants ; a circumstance corroborative of its faithfulness, and 
of the purity of the intentions of their translators, in taking the Hebrew alone for their guide. That 
they are charged by *Ward as translating contrary to the Greek, is of little consequence, as they 
neither followed it, nor professed to have done so ; but that they translated contrary to the Hebrew, 
is, as has been proved, as untrue, as that they formed their translation " purposely to detract from the 
honour of the Apostles and holy Saints." 

Since faith and invocation should terminate in the same object, how can Protestants call on that 
Saint, in whom they do not believe ? And, therefore, if they cannot, without blasphemy, say, that 
they believe in this saint or angel ; neither can they, without idolatry, pray unto that saint or angel. 
Are not the two following articles found in the creed of Pope Pius? "That the saints reigning toge- 
ther with Christ, are to be venerated and invoked ; and that they offer up prayers to God for us, and 
their relics are to be venerated." As also, " I do most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, and 
the ever Virgin Mother of God, and other saints, are to be had, and retained, and that due honour and 
veneration are to be given them.'' Can the Romanists complain of being here misrepresented, when 
the articles of their own creed are cited against them, and when they are judged, as it were, according 
to their own confession ? It is not a little remarkable, in how many ways, God has condemned abomina- 
tions such as these. Thus when Moses died, the Israelites could not find his body ; for had they, the 
probability is, that they would have worshipped the remains of their great benefactor. As little is 
known of the Virgin Mary, as she is spoken of only once after the ascension. Our Saviour, on more 
than one occasion, during his life time, addressed her in a way which tended not only to discounte- 
nance idolatry, but even to prevent the idea of it being indulged in. As when he said, t" Woman, 
what have I to do with thee And again, J" who is my mother, and who are my brethren ?'' Which 
he thus answered, " behold my mother, and my brethren, for whosoever shall do the will of my Fa- 
ther, which is in heaven, the same is my brother, sister, and mother." It is most certain, that his 
views penetrated into futurity, and that he foresaw the blasphemous worship of the Virgin, when he 
declared himself in this decided manner. With respect to Joseph, who sprang up all at once the next 
greatest saint to his spouse Mary, in the fourteenth century, his death is not once mentioned; and, 
with the exception of Peter, the same may be said of the Apostles. It would, therefore, appear astonish- 
ing, when every thing, which bore relation to the death of these extraordinary men, has been wrapped 
up in obscurity, that this all-wise purpose of God should be perverted to the propagation of error, 
were it not known, that the whole fabrication of saint- worship, in the Church of Rome, proceeded from 
covetousness and ambition ; to gratify which, every feeling of true piety and devotion was necessarily 
prostituted. 

* Errata, page 59. f John c. ii. v. iv. 

t Matt. c. xii. v. 48, 49, 50. and Mark, c. iii. v. 33, 34,35. 



H 



50 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



SECTION X.— THE DISTINCTION OF RELATIVE AND DIVINE WORSHIP. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K. Jamas' sBibleiGn 


Heb. xi. 21. 


Hire laxwC 
amQtrtcry.viieitx- 
Tov tut viuti Ja>- 
crritp ivKoyriTz, 
xsci vrgoaeiivvn- 
atv etti To cty.^ov 
T>); ^aQs ctuTV. 


Fide Jacob, 
moriens,singu- 
los filiorum Jo- 
seph benedixit: 
& adoravit fas- 
tigium virgse 
ejus. TheVulg. 
text, according 
to Mont, ado- 
ravit super fas- 
tigium, &c. 


By faith, Jacob 
dying, blessed 
every one of the 
sons of Joseph, 
and adored the 
top of his rod. 


Per fidem, Jacob 
moriens singulis 
filiis Joseph be- 
nedixit : et adora- 
vit super extremo 

baculo suo. 
Mont, ren- 
ders it, super sum- 

mitateni virgte 

SU!£. 


and c leaning on 
the end of his 
staff, worshipped 
God,' 


By faith Jacob, 
when he was a dy- 
ing, blessed both 
the sons of Joseph j 
and ' worshipped, 
leaning upon the top 
of his staff.' 

(57) 


Gen.xlvii.31. 


CIV l<T(:0ivih ITT I 
TO <zx£0y T»5 

^aS^u cevra. 

ntaon t2/N-)'!?j? 


Adoravit Israel 
Deum conver- 
sus ad lectuli 
caput. Pagn. 
et incurvavitse 
Israel ad caput 
lecti. 


Israel adored 
God, turning to 
the bed's head. 


Mont, prefers 
super to ' ad.' 


Israel ' worship- 
ped' God < to- 
wards' the bed's 
head. 


And Israel c bowed 
himself upon ' the 
bed's head. 

(58) 


Ps. xcix. 5. 


Keel irgotr/.viisiTe 

ran •noSuii civtu, 
in ayio; Ej-t. 


EtadorateSca- 
bellum pedum 
ejus, quoniam 

sanctum est. 
PAGN.etincur- 
vate vos sca- 

bello pedum 
ejus, sanctum 
quod est. 


And adore ye his 
footstool, because 
it is holy. Acord- 
ing to Ward, 'the 
footstool of his 
feet' 




and e fall down 
before ' his foot- 
stool, for he is 
holy. 


' And worship at ' 
his footstool, for he 
is holy. 

(59) 


Ib. cxxxii. 7' 


£/J TO* T07TOV a 
CtUTS. 


Adorabimus in 
loco, ubi stete- 
runt pedes ejus. 
PAGN.incurva- 
bimus nos sca- 
bello pedum 
ejus. 


We will adore in 
the place where 
his feet stood. 




we will ' fall 
down before his 
footstool.' 


We will e worship 
at his footstool.' 

(60) 



57. E#fltf OP* ,l Both the sons," intimates Ephraim and Manasseh, the rulers of the two 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 161 i. 



51 



tribes ; whereas, " every one of the sons '' would imply that Joseph had more than two. And as to 
the concluding part of this verse, it evidently sets aside, instead of establishing, the doctrine of in- 
ferior worship, or, as the Romish Church denominates it, dulia. For as St. Paul cites the passage, 
in the sense it bears in the *lxx. and as the preposition ewi is introduced there, it must, if it have 
any signification, mean upon. Besides, the Hebrew word nao is either e staff,' or 1 bed,' according to 
its punctuation, which Ward himself is forced to confess. If the former acceptation be adopted, it 
will follow, that Jacob required support on account of his infirmities; if the latter, that he turned 
away his face from the obtrusion of external objects to his bed's head, the better to indulge his deep 
meditations. In fine, the passage manifestly indicates Jacob's posture in worship, and not the object of 
his worship. jGrotius, in his comments, thus pertinently expresses himself: " videtur Jacobus, quo 
majorem Deo honorem haberet, preces facturus, ex lecto surrexisse, et ineo consedisse, innivus scipioni, 
qui gestus egregiam habet fidei imaginem.'' 

" But here," says Ward, " they add two words more than are in the Greek text, leaning and God, 
" forcing aura to signify iw», &c." This is of the same complexion with his other charges, since those 
very words were, in the first Protestant Translations, printed in italics, to shew that they had not cor- 
responding ones in the original ; even without them, the sense would not be at all affected. So blinded 
was this man by his zeal to attach error to the last Protestant Translation of the Bible, that although he 
gives its ^reading of this text, in which only one of the terms objected to by him occurs, yet he quotes 
the above cavil against §both words, nearly in the very form in which Gregory Martin made his objec- 
tion in the preceding century. 

If, then, the || preposition had no meaning, the Apostle would, it may be fairly presumed, have 
omitted it; or, if he had designed to express nothing more than the adoration of Joseph's sceptre, he 
would not have exclusively referred to its top, or extremity; there being no more reason, why that 
particular part should be adored, than any other. Hence manifestly appears the propriety of retaining 
the explanatory word leaning. But admitting the correctness of the Popish interpretation, f£ towards 
the top of his sceptre," which, as HWard says, " is according to the Greek ;" yet that would not 
warrant the worshipping of images, which is expressly forbidden by the second commandment. 

As to avra, it is not, as he says, forced to signify nor is it " as rare as virgas ejus for virgaj 
sucb" since it is frequently used for it, except when a second antecedent, to which it is referred, 
occurs ; then, to avoid ambiguity, ««« is used. 

" But why is it," continues Ward, " that they boldly add (leaned and God) in one place, and 
take away (God) in another ?" The fact is, the word God does not occur in the original of either 
text, although it may be fairly considered as understood, which caused the early translators, guided as 
they were by the meaning, to introduce it in both places, and to mark it, as was before observed, in 
italics. The last Translators, however, keeping closer to the original, omitted the word in one place, 
as it was not expressed, though understood, and therefore consistently did so in the other. So that 

* Genesis, c.xlvii. v. 31. f Vid. Pol. Synope. in loc. X Errata fifth column, Page 60. 

§ Saepe usitatur pro itixr^ov vel a-^u. See Whitby in loc. 
|] Ew» super has not been translated by the Rhemists. % Errata, page 61 . 

H 2 



52 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



the charge is false, whether directed against these, or those translators. Besides, the early translators, 
if they added ' leaned and God' in one text, did not suppress 'worshipped God/ in the other ; and 
their successors not having added ' God,' in one case, could not be said to omit it in the other. To 
satisfy himself in this, the reader need but consult the last two columns belonging to numbers 57 and 
58, where he will find the identical reading of both English versions as given by Ward. It will like- 
wise be perceived, under the head Rhemish Version, that the Popish translators introduced the word 
e God' into their translation of the Hebrew passage, while they omitted it in their translation of the 
Greek one! This is the more remarkable, as the corresponding word is not in the Hebrew, to which 
language, Ward himself, on this occasion, appeals ; indeed, he even quotes the very passage itself, as 
if to shew that it was not there. So much for the consistency of Popish controvertists ! 

58.*b%- .-E/T^. The passage, in which the foregoing Hebrew word is found, is the very one which 
St. Paul had in view, when speaking of Jacob blessing Joseph's sons. It is worth observing, that 
that very particle, which occurs in the original, is rendered m in the version of the Seventy, 
and has also been translated ' to,' in the Douay O. T. ; while the translation of m is suppressed in the 
Rhemish New Testament. In the ffirst Book of Kings, the Hebrew (of which the following is the Sep- 
tuagint Greek, x«» wgo«xuvw £ v S £««>. £ us *o»t>j») is translated by Jerome, *' et adoravit rex in lectulo 

suo;" and by Pagninus, " et inourvavit se rex super lectum ;" and by the Douay doctors, " and the 
King adored in his bed." Thus, as it appears, that notice is taken of the Hebrew preposition in each of the 
different languages, into which this text has been translated, as well as of that belonging to the present 
number, it is highly probable that the Rhemists passed it by, in the ^Epistle to the Hebrews, solely 
with a view to establish, as §Ward expresses it, " the adoration of creatures, named Dulia; to wit, 
of the cross and of sacred images." The reader may now easily determine, whether Ward has suc- 
ceeded in his design, or brought home the charge of wilful mistranslation against the Protestant 
Translators. 

5Q. 60. 'I mrttflT) Kai 7TgQ(nCVV£lT£. Ward insists, that in passages similar to this in th 
Psalms, the Hebrew prepositions have no more force, than if we should say in English, with- 
out prepositions, ' we will adore the place where his feet stood ' adore ye his footstool ;' 
' adore ye the Lord :' And because the Protestant Translators have rendered one ^[text, viz. 4 worship 
the Lord,' after this manner, his conclusion is, " that in these places their translation is corrupt and 
wilful, when they say, e we will fall down' before or at his footstool, &c.'' If the English Translators 
committed any fault here, in not noticing the Hebrew particle, it must be allowed to be one of a perfectly 
venial nature, as the worship is only referred to the Lord himself. It is a very different thing to fall 
down in, at, or before, a place where God appointed his worship to be kept, as in the Temple, 
Tabernacle, Mount Sion, &c. and to bow down to them, for the purpose of paying them worship. 
The Jews were expressly enjoined the former practice ; while, on the contrary, Christians are no where 
directed to worship at or before the crucifix, relics, images, &c. &c. 

* hi? in the translation made from the Chaldee Paraphrase, is rendered super. In Sixlus Vth.'s bible, the same reading 
obtains. It is by this Hebrew word, too, that Beza determines the meaning of tm, in Hebrews, c. xi. v. 21. " Etw nihil aliud 
hie declarat quam super: ut sit hie sensus, Jacobum adornsse super extreme bacnlo, id est, baculo innixum ; quodunusex vete- 
vibus Anguslinus vidit : ut si in vernaculo sermone nostro dicas, sur !'e Lout de s&H Latou." Bez. Annot. page 429. 
| C. i.v.47. + C. xi. v. 21. § Errata, page 6l. 

|J From WW To fall prostrate on the ground. Pakkk. ^[ Psal. xIt. v. 2. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 161 h 



58 



But as Ward, in bringing forward the above texts, has endeavoured to make out that m means 
' towards,' or rather that it has no meaning at all, by determining its acceptation from the correspond- 
ing Hebrew word, it is fit to meet him on his own ground, as even there, it can be shewn that he is 
totally wrong. It is, however, first necessary to state, that the Hebrew, to which, in the beginning, he 
referred un was the particle bv; and that finding he must, in that case, attach some sense or other 
to it, he then refers it to the prefix <?. 

On inspecting the texts belonging to numbers 59. 60. in the columns, the reader will perceive, that 
even in the Popish translation, (■?) le is not an expletive in the latter number. The original *ie hadom 
raglaiv is precisely the same in both texts, and consequently so are the translations of them in the 
Protestant Bible. The ancient translators rendered b before, and the late ones at, in either text ; 
while the Popish renderings of the two texts are inconsistent with each other ; so that if one be right, 
the other must be wrong. For, in the ffirst of them, the prefix b is converted into a mere expletive, 
while in the ^second, it is made significant, and of the same import as that, which it receives in the 
English Translation of 1 6l 1 ; and although not construed by the same word at, yet by a circumlocu- 
tion, it is made to bear the same meaning, viz. *' in the place where." This is another instance of 
Ward's fairness, in censuring the Protestant Translators for making the prefix le significant, by render- 
it at in both those texts, while his own translation of one of them justifies that use of the word. 

The exact translation of the Hebrew word at the head of this article is, " fall prostrate on the 
ground." This was the profoundest act of adoration in the East, whether civil or religious : yet it is 
also used to express humility of mind, as in Psal. xlii. v. 5. " why art thou cast down. O my soul ?" 
and also in different other places. The Greek word vr^emwca is used by Herodotus, to express that 
abject prostration before the Persian Monarch, which was exacted by him from his subjects, and has 
been applied where profound reverence is said to be required for the prince, or civil magistrate ; but 
that surely cannot warrant adoration in a religious sense. Beside the commandment, the express 
words of Christ condemn it ;§ " thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." 
Here evidently is the distinction drawn by Papists between \\Dulia and Latvia done away ; since it 
was the former Satan required, when Christ told him, that religious worship was due to God alone. 

That " worship at his footstool," &c. is no mistranslation, may be proved from the conclusion of 
the Psalm itself. In one place, the prophet used these words, and added as a reason, iC for he is holy." 
In the other, he says, " worship at his holy hill ; for the Lord our God is holy." If the Greek be 
followed, it is clear enough, that the word in the former text, refers to the object of worship, 
scil. xv?t>f } and not to vvovahu, which is of a different gender. In the latter text, the doubt is 
removed, as x^io? i Seo ? is expressed. This is further confirmed by the Hebrew, the source and spring, 
whence the meaning of the Royal Psalmist may be best derived ; since instead of win cmp, Lxx. 
«yio? ert, u he is holy :" he, immediately after, more fully expresses himself thus, mn> vpp, Lxx. ayio? 
xvg»r « fl£<> f , " the Lord. our God is holy." These words, therefore, remove any ambiguity which might 
be supposed to exist in those. The Prophet, in mentioning the " holy hill," but points out where the 

* >>Vl mrr? t See col. Rhem. Vers. No. 5Q. J Ibid. No. 60. 

§ K^i/n to> ©con a-a wprxvund-tts, xai a.vrui MONfi X**gii>«rb$. Matt. c. iv. v. 10. and Luke, c. iv. v. 8. 

H The te rns Latreia and Duleia are borrowed from the Greek, a circumstance no way creditable to the authority ascribed 
by the Popish Church to the Latin Vulgate. They are not so much as mentioned in the Trent Catechism, nor is the distinction 
assigned them, any where observed in the New Testament. 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



*lbotstool of God lay. His view was solely directed to the ark of the covenant, on the cover of which, 
under the representation of the Cherubims, the jLord seemed to rest, as on a throne ; but he no more 
designed that it should be adored, than the hill on which it stood. 

Ward, most barefacedly, misrepresents St. Augustine's interpretation of the text, when he 
says, that that Father inferred from ir, " that the blessed sacrament must be adored, and that no good 
Christian takes it, before he adores it." St. Augustine's words are, that the humanity, or body, of 
Christ must be adored, but not the blessed sacrament. And that he did not consider his humanity, or 
body, inherent in the sacrament, is evident from what_he conceived a sacrament to be. " In ^sacra- 
ments," says he, we are to see, not what they are, but what they signify." 

Lastly, Jerome says, that to adore any creatures is downright idolatry. And on the passage in 
question he remarks, < We do not worship, but honour the religious martyrs ; for this reason, that we 
might adore him whose martyrs they are.' Thus does he decidedly condemn the Dulia, inasmuch as 
he makes adoration proper only to God. 



SECTION XL— SACRED IMAGES, AND THE USE OF THEM. 



Book. Ch. Vcr 



Oiig. Greek.! Vulgate Text. 



Col. iii. 5. 



Eph. v. 5. 



tan, >)TIJ Eriv 



1) iz>.itiny.Tfi:, os 



et avaritiam 
qua? est 
simulachrorum 
servitus. 



Rhemish Version. Beza's LatinText 



Bps. Bible, 1568 



aut avarus 
quod est ido 

lorum servi- 
tus. (alii le- 
gunt, servus.) 



And avarice, 
which is the 
service of idols. 

Later editions 
have 'covetous- 
ness. ' 



or covetous 
person which 
is the ser- 
vice of idols, 
(others { serv- 
ing of) 



et avaritiam, 
quge est idolo- 
Iatria. 
Mont. 

idololatria. 



aut avarum, 

qui est 
idololatra. 

Mont. 
qui est idolo- 
latra. 



*And covet- 
ousness which 
is 'the wor- 
shipping of 
images.' 



*And covet 
ous man 'which 
is a worshipper 
of images.' 



K.James'sBibleiGn 



And covetous- 
ness, which is 
* idolatry.' 

(61) 



nor covetous 
man ' who is an 
' idolater.' 



(62) 



Marked thus* icere altered to their present reading A. D. 1611. 



* The Ark so called. See Chron. c. xxviii. v. 2. 
f " Quod alls Cherubim, mutuo expansis ac se contingentibus, tanquam sedili vel throno videbatur insidere Dorninus ; pedibus 
Arcx operculo, tanquam scabello impositis. Vid. Pol. Synops. in loc. 

% " In sacramentis videndum est, non quod s'mt, sed quoi significant." 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



55 



6l. 62. TLlOGOXoXcLTgYjCo The worship of images consists of two kinds; either when they are 
worshipped as Gods, as by the ignorant devotees of the present day, in opposition to the first command- 
ment; or, when men pretend to worship God by them, as the better informed Romanists do, in vio- 
lation of the second commandment Thus it happens, that this description of worshippers, although 
they do not believe their saints and angels to be God, yet by paying them the inward worship of the 
soul, are as guilty of idolatry, as if they did believe them to be Gods ; since they ascribe to them that 
which peculiarly belongs to God. 

It may be owing to the similitude which the Apostle discovered between these characters, that he 
calls the covetous man ' a worshipper of images,' or, as it is in later editions of the Protestant Bible, 
an 'idolater;' for, evidently, the man who depends more on his riches, for the support of his life, 
than on God, should be deemed one. 

It is unaccountable, what a propensity to cavil manifests itself in every page of the Errata. In his 
observations on the present text, Ward sets out with inveighing against the first English Translations of 
it ; and after a torrent of abuse, not only on the Translators, but the Protestant Clergy, concludes 
with saying, because they have " latterly mended the matter, I will say no more about it.'' So that he 
in a manner admits, that he cavils for cavilling sake. But he has gratified his humour, in this respect, at 
the expence of his knowledge ; since simulachrum, the word used by Jerome, denotes an ' image,' as 
much as imago. Thus in the Vulgate version of a * text, in the first book of Samuel, simulachrum 
does not signify an idol worshipped for God, but the very thing expressed by imago. Several of the 
Fathers take it in the same sense ; and, of profane authors, fCicero applies simulachrum, imago, and 
statua, alike. It may now be fairly collected, that ' image ' is no mistranslation of much less a 

wilful corruption ; and therefore that Ward was not justifiable in drawing up so severe a stricture on 
the first Protestant Translation of the texts belonging to the numbers prefixed to this article. In a 
confident tone, he asks, % e when the cross stood many years upon the table in Queen Elizabeth's cha- 
pel, was it against this (the first) commandment?" He should have known, that it is not the having 
images in churches and chapels, which is contrary to the commandment ; but the converting them to 
a religious use. And if, as he says, " the Lutherans beyond seas" had, in their churches, images of 
the Virgin Mary and St. John ; it was not for the purpose of worshipping them. However, if they 
deviated in the slightest degree from the word of God, they are no more to be excused,, than the Ro- 
manists themselves. Ward concludes his remarks on this head with one other enquiry. " For do they 
not know, that God many times forbad the Jews either to marry or converse with the Gentiles, lest 
they might fall to worship their idols?" The cases are by no means parallel ; as there is a positive 
commandment in the one case, and in the other a simple prohibition, against intermarriage, or con- 
versation with the heathen. 



* C. xix. In the sixteenth verse, that is called simulachrum which was called statua in the thirteenth. See also Genesis, c. i, v, 26, 

f Pro Archia Poeta. % Ejr ta, page §5$ 



56 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



Book.Ch.Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James's Biblei6 1 1 


2 Cor. vi. l6, 


8w(? vhw Qsov 


Quis (alii, 
qui) autem 
consensus 
Templo Dei 
cum Idolis ? 


And what 
agreement hath 
the Temple of 
God with idols? 


et quae consen- 
sio templo Dei 
cum simula- 
chris? 


*How agreeth 
the temple of 
God with 
1 images?' 


And what . 
agreement hath 
the Temple of 

God with 
'idols?' 

(63) 


1 John v. 


Ttxv.a, pu- 

^a|«TE tOtVTUf 


Filioli, custo- 
dite vos a si- 
mulachris. 


My little chil- 
dren, keep 
yourselves from 
idols. 


Filioli, cavete 
vobis ab idolis. 

TV ,T 

Mont. 
vos ipsos ab 
idolis. 


*. . . . 'keep 
yourselves from 
images.' 


little children, 
keep yourselves 
from ? idols.' 

(64) 


1 Cor. x. 7. 




Neque idolo- 
latrae efficia- 
mini, sicut 
quidam ex 
ipsis. 


Neither be- 
come ye idola- 
ters, as certain 
of them. 


Ne igituridolo- 
latrai fiatis, 
sicut quidam 
eorum. 


*Be not ' wor 
shippers of 
images,' as 

some of them. 


Neither be ye 
* idolaters,' as 
were some of 
them. 

(65) 


1 Cor. v. 10. 




aut idolis ser- 
vientibus. 


or the servers 
of idols. 


aut idololatris. 
Mont. 

idololatris. 


' idolaters ' 


or with 'idolaters' 
(66) 






aut idolis ser- 
viens. 


or a server of 
idols. 


idololatra. 

Mont. 
idololatra. 


*a worshipper 
of images. 


or an idolater. 

(67) 



Marked thus * were altered to their present reading A. D. 1611. 



67. ElStihQV* It is to no purpose that the Protestant Translators of 1611 conformed 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



5? 



their version of the texts connected with the foregoing numbers to the Popish one, as this circum- 
stance is not even noticed by Ward, while he inveighs with peculiar acrimony against their prede- 
cessors for having, with *" malicious intent, and set purpose of deluding the poor simple people," 
preferred images to idols ; as if " images might not be had without sin." He then subjoins, for 
<{ we see the Jews had the images of the cherubims, and the figures of the oxen in the temple, and 
the image of the brazen serpent in the wilderness, by Gods appointment." There cannot be a 
weaker, or more futile objection, than that, which he has here advanced. For, in the first place, how 
could any delusion be intended, when it was admitted, at the very time, and set forth in the marginal 
notes to the English Bibles, that the Translators considered ' worshippers of images,' and 'idolaters/ 
to imply one and the same thing ? Next, if God appointed the cherubims, the oxen, and the 
pomegranates, to be made, it was not that He should be worshipped in, or through them ; they were 
merely ornaments, and only designed for decorating and tbeautifying the temple. So that the com- 
mandment, ' thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image, &c.' imposes a restraint on men not 
to make images for religious purposes, which are the device of their own imaginations, or unautho- 
rised by God. Against such the Apostle spoke, and nothing more was intended by the Protestant 
Translators. And, lastly, as to the brazen serpent, it was ||||broken in pieces, when the people began 
to worship it. 

^Doctor Milner, whose zeal in the cause of Popery has scarcely been exceeded by that of Ward, 
attempts to give a colour to image-worship, by citing the following passage from Bede's §works. " If 
it was lawful to make twelve oxen of brass to support the brazen sea, it cannot be amiss to paint the 
twelve Apostles going to preach to all nations." From these words, nothing beside the lawfulness of 
having images in churches, is alluded to ; a point which Protestants will as readily concede to Doctor 
Milner, (since there exist images at this day in several of their churches,) as they do, that of the Jews 
having had the images prescribed them, without sin, to his favourite author, Ward. There is no 
doubt of that Fathers principles having been misrepresented, as he elsewhere unequivocally llcondemns 
the honour and worship paid to images. It makes no difference, that, in the passage quoted, he speaks 
of heathens ; his language is equally directed to the worshippers of Popish Saints, &c. ^ITer- 
tullian, in his commentary on ] St. John, v. 21. (Number 64) thus forcibly expresses himself, when he 
desires them to keep away, " not now from idolatry, as from the service ; but from the idols themselves, 
that is, from the very image or shape of them. For, it is unworthy that the image of the living God 
should be made the image of an idol, and that being dead." 

* Errata, page 63. • f See Ezra vii. TJ. Isa. lx. 13. 2 Chron. iii 6. 

||[| Quem sane serpentem (says St. Austin) propter facti memoriam reservatum, cum postea populus errans, tanquam idolurri, 
colere caepisset, Ezechias fregit, &c. De civit. Lib. x. c. 8. Refer particularly to 2 Kings xviii. 4. Hezekiah is there said to 
have " removed the high places, and brake the images, and cut down the groves, and brake in pieces the brazen serpent, 
that Moses had made : for the children of Israel did burn incense to it." 

J See Inquiry, page 146. § De templo Saiom. cap. 19. 

|| Existit, nescio quis disputator, et dicit, non ego ilium lapidem colo, nec ill ud simulachrum quod est sinesensu. Non ego illud 
colo, sed adoro quod non video, et servio ei quem non video. Quis est iste \ Numen quoddam, inquit, invisibile, quod prassidet simu- 
lachro. Hoc modo, reddendo rationem-de simulachro, suis diserti videritur quia non colunt idola, et colunt daemonia. Bede, ad 
Cor. c. x. 

^| Non jam ab idololatria, quasi ab officio, sed ab idolis, id est, ab ipsa effigie eorum. Indignum enim, ut imago Dei vivi, imag» 
idoli et mortui fiat, &c. 

z 



58 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



Book. Ch. Ver 



Orig. Greek 



Rom. xi. 4. 



OtTtVfS UK iXCtfA- 

>J/3V yonv Tn 
BctaK 



Aets. xix. 35. 



Vulgate Text. IRhemishVersion 



Beza'sLatinText. Bps. Bible, 1568, 



Reliqui mihijl have left me 
septem millia seven thousand 

virorum qui men that have 
non curvave- not bowed 

runt genua their knees to 
ante Baal. ' Baal. 



Cultricem 
esse magnce 

Dianae et 
Jovis prolis. 



A worshipper 
of great Diana 
and Jupiter's 
Child. 



(Some 
editions read 
' offspring: ) 



Feci ut reman- 
serint mini sep- 
tem millia viro 
rum qui non 
flexerunt genu 
>,as;mi Baal. 



K.James'sBiblei6n 



to 



the image' 
of Baal. 



I have reserved 
to myself seven 

thousand men, 

who have not 
bowed the knee 

to the image 
of Baal. 



(68) 



/Edituam mag- 
na;Dese Dianas, 
et a Jove de- 
lapsi simu- 
lachri. 



' the image ' 
which came 
down from 
Jupiter. 



A worshipper of 
the great God- 
dess Diana, and 
of { the image ' 
which fell down 
from Jupiter. 



68. Ty BaaA. These words of St. Paul are found in the Septuagint reading of the *first 
book of Kings, whence they are manifestly taken. As the article is feminine, Erasmus supplies 
and Estius r »*?, which term, according to the lxx. signifies an image or statue ; thus in the tsecond 
book of Kings, the ' statue (or image) of Baal.' 

In Montanus's bible, the ante is transferred to the margin from the Vulgate Text, as not having a 
corresponding preposition in the Greek. Ward is offended with the Protestant Translators for " falsi- 
fying and corrupting the scripture, by introducing the word image into the text." It is, however, 
left to the reader to judge ; whether image worship be the less condemned by its omission, or its 
votaries less liable to the Divine vengeance, than the apostate tribes were, among the Jews. In the 



* C. xix. v. 18. 



f C. x. v. 26, 27. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN Mil, 



59 



allusion made to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the sentence pronounced on them 
waS} — that whether Baal were worshipped under the representation of the *male or the female sex, 
its worshippers would be cut off, while the faithful few would be -{"exempted. 

69. 0SGt, Although this is a most remarkable word, yet it has been, somehow, unaccountably 
passed over by the Rhemish Translators. It is true, it was generally known that Diana was esteemed 
a Goddess, yet, that did not warrant the suppression of her appropriate title ; this is the less excusable, 
on account of the accuracy, with which Ward boasts they executed their version of the New Testa- 
ment. How unfair, then, was it in him, with this fact before his eyes, to accuse the Protestant 
Translators of " intruding the word image into the text, although," he says, " they knew full well 
it was not in the Greek ?" The reader must have already seen, that many of his charges are of this 
description, unfounded and absurd ; or about points, in themselves, of the most trifling import. 

Now, as to the translation of Jaio^s?, it is maintained, that one more literal could not be given, than 
that which Ward calls corrupt; and let the subject, to which it refers, be an image, a shield, or any 
other object of heathen adoration, its own strict and lawful meaning is, " what had fallen down from 
Jupiter," or from Heaven ; and, therefore, is not of any consequence to the Christian, one way or the 
other. Isidorus Clarius himself, who restored the ancient Latin copy, by correcting it from the ori- 
ginal, rejected Jovis prolis, as in the Vulgate text, and substituted, with the consent of the deputies 
of the Council of Trent, these words : a §Jove delapsi simulachri. The word image is, therefore, 
necessarily understood in the original, and is, with great propriety, introduced into the text of the 
English Translation. Indeed, it would be unpardonable to omit it, as the concurrent voice of history 
testifies the belief, which prevailed among the Ephesians, that an image of Diana had actually dropt 
down from heaven into their city. The erection of a splendid temple, which was the wonder of the 
world, and the immense sums which were spent in beautifying and adorning it ; not only shew how pecu- 
liarly addicted the Ephesians were to the worship of Diana ; but, likewise, the existence of her image. 
Pliny relates the matter at large, Lib. xvi. cap. 40. 

* In some copies of the lxx. the reading is ra Baa*, 
f Grotius says, " Effecturum Deum, ut cladibus illis super Tribus Decern Venturis, intacti manerent, qui Baalis imagini, nec genua 
flexerant, nec osculum dederant ; plane sicut qui Legem observarunt, exempti sunt ab excidio Hieros. facto per Nabuchodono- 
sorem." Vid. Pol. Synops. in loc. Also, Bishop Patrick's Commentary on I Kings, c. xix. v. IS. and 2 Kings, c. x. v. 26, 27, 

% A. Jove delapsus, qui caelitus descendit. Scap. 
$ Vel caelitus, constat enim Jovem pro ccelo dici frequens Graecis Pol. Synops. in loe. 



i 2 



60 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



Book. Ch. Ver.Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6n 


Exod. xx. 4. 


Of mmffetf 
irsetvru uSuKov. 


Non facies 
tibi sculptile. 


Thou shalt not 
make to thee a 
graven thing. 




any graven 
' image. ' 


thou shalt not 

make unto 
thee any graven 
' image.' (70) 


Isa. xxx. 22. 


llJwAa T« 7TE- 
XXI W££(X£- 

TK women);. 


Et contami- 
nabis laminas 

sculptilium 

argenti tui 
et vestimen- 
tum conflati- 

lis auri tui. 

Pagn. Con- 
taminabitis 
operimen- 

tnm Qr*n1nfi 

LU1M Ol/UlUll- 

Hum argenti 
tui, et operi- 
mentum pre- 
tiosum con- 
flatilis auri 
tui. 


And thou shalt 

contaminate 
the plates of the 
sculptils of thy 
silver, and the 
garment of the 
molten of thy 
gold. 


Mont. 
makes no 
change in Pag- 
ninus's version, 
except 
in reading 
superhnmerale 
for operimen- 
tum pretiosum. 


The covering 
of thy ' graven 
images ' of sil- 
ver, and the 
ornament of 
thy ' molten 
images ' of 
gold. 


Ye shall defile 
also the covering 
of thy 1 graven 
images ' of silver, 
and the ornament 
of thy ' molten 
images' of gold. 

\ (70 


Hab.K. 18. 


Ti w^sXsi yXvTr- 

TOV ('JDS) 

on elXttyay 

dtUTO J ETTAflt J"£V 

airro ^wi/Eii^a, 
^«»Tascnav 


Quid prodest 
sculptile,quia 
sculpsit illud 
fictor suus, 
conflatile et 
e imaginem 
falsam ?' 

Pagn. 

docens men- 
dacium. 


What profiteth 
the thing en- 
graven, that the 
forger thereof 
hath graven it, 
a mnltpn and a 
false image ? 




What profiteth 
the image, for 
the maker 
thereof hath 
made it an 
imafe and a 
teacher of lies r 


What profiteth 
the 4 graven 
image,' that the 

maker thereof 
hath graven it ; 

trip mnlfrpn i m c\ rrp 
LUC UJUiLCii inJatiC 

and a teacher of 
lies? 

( "7C)\ 


Dan. xiv. 4. 


j£Ei£07roi>)T«. 


Idola manu- 
facta. 


Idols made with 
hands. 




Apocryphal. 


Apocryphal. 

(73) 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 161 h 



61 



70. ^DS j-BL JwAOJ/. Whether thing or image be admitted as the literal English, no change 
is given thereby to the commandment against idolatry. The Hebrew word means what is hewn or 
carved ; so that whether the representation of any living or inanimate thing, which was worshipped, 
were cast, painted, or carved, its worship was alike forbidden. With respect to those things com- 
manded by God, as the Cherubims, Oxen, Brazen Serpent, &c. there is not, in scripture, one word 
of command, or even of intimation, that he would have them worshipped. 

Ward, it must be observed, only quotes the first clause of the commandment, J" thou shalt not 
make to thyself any graven thing." The reason is obvious, for had he annexed what immediately 
follows, " nor the likeness of any thing, &c." " thou shalt not bow thyself down to them, &c." it 
would have overturned his arguments for a distinction between idols and images, which are bowed 
down to, and reverenced, for the sake of what they represent. It would also snew the signification 
of pesel, and that the meaning of the whole sentence is precisely the same, whether it be rendered 
graven thing, or graven image. The reader will also perceive that, in the passage omitted by Ward, 
the prohibition against bowing down to images is, if possible, more strongly expressed in the Hebrew 
and Greek than in the English translation, as the word and -nctno^ signify £ any at all,' or ' whatever? 
The Protestant Translators, however, deeming " any" expressive enough, dispensed with the use of 
these adjuncts. Indeed, the use of them would evidently be redundant. So that the words which 
immediately follow fto», viz. iiantos a^ot^a ; or, to refer even to the Vulgate, those subjoined 
to " sculptile," viz. " neque omnem similitudinem," clearly prove, that neither the Seventy nor 
Jerome took pesel, generally, for any graven work. ^Origin says, that neither a picture drawer, nor 
a statuary was allowed in the Jewish state. His words are, (ay taps, ayafyunwoios utn ^■knaa.a.^nm, &c. 
This passage fully declares his meaning. 

* To cut with a tool, and as a noun, a graven or carved image. Parkh:. 

f From siSof, an image or representation, whether corporeal or mental, of some other thing. — Parkh. Tertullian calls it 
formula, (dim. a forma) deriving it, however, from the same word ah;, and most pointedly condemns every kind of idolatry. 
" Jgitur omnis forma (scil. m&s) vel formula (iiSaAon) idolum se dici exposcit. Inde idololatria, omnis circa idolum famulatus, et 
servitus" Tert. de idololatria. c. iii. As it is here determined, that every description of serviceable attendance (famulatus) on 
an idol, is idolatry, and that idol is but the generic appellation of forms of things, great or small ; the attempt is vain to distinguish 
between idols and images. Homer, too, determines uh&» to be synonymous with image : 

'0 EIAI1AON teu|' agyt^oTo|;o; AwoXAwn. E. 44Q. And again, TuAs tigytsaw ^v-gai EIAI2AA y.ayjavrm. V\. V. 72. 

Pope, in explaining the ^Egyptian philosophy followed by Homer, observes, that eiWov " is properly the image of the body in 
which it was inclosed." Transl. vol. iv. p. l6g, And Wolflus says, nunc pro simulachro, nunc pro defunctorum seu inferorum 
umlris spectrisve sumitur. Cur^:. Philol. vol. iii. p. 421. 

+ Ward says, that the clauses, " thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing, &c." belong to the first commandment j 
yet in Butler's Catechism they are suppressed. But whether they be suppressed, or moulded into one, with the first command- 
ment, a division of the tenth necessarily follows, in order to make out the ninth, which would otherwise be wanting. Let the 
reader now compare Exod. xx. 17. with Deut. v. 21. and he will see that the clause, "thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's 
wife," which the Popish Church sets down as the ninth commandment, occurs second in order in the former place, and first in the 
latter. Can there be a plainer proof than this, that God designed that the commandment relative to coveting should be one and 
the same ; and, therefore, that the clauses, in which, the making, and worshipping, graven images are forbidden, should neither 
be suppressed, nor made a part of the first commandment i Reader, examine and judge. 

§ Orig. cont. Cels. Lib. iv. p. 181. 

- 



62 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



71. ^pSJ-rppa The prophetic admonition, which amounts to this, that one God be worship- 
ped, and all heathen superstition be abolished, is alike contained in either the Douay or Protestant 
Version, and has equally a reference to the images now used by the Romanists, as it had, when delivered, 
to pagan idols ; both tending to withdraw the minds of men from the worship of God. It does not 
require much penetration to perceive that the Protestant translation is the true one, and that that of 
Douay is less clear and satisfactory, notwithstanding that Ward affects to disprove it. He ushers in 
the article with observing, *" the two Hebrew words pesilim and massechoth, which in the Latin 
signify sculptilia and conflatilia, they in their translation render into English by the word images, 
neither word being Hebrew for an image." The asseveration contained in this last clause is made in 
direct opposition to the opinions of the best Hebraists, who consider them to signify nothing else, 
except graven or cast images, and by the figure synecdoche, as taken generally for every description of 
images. " But," continues Ward, " if one should ask, what is the Latin for image ? and they should 
tell him sculptile: whereupon he seeing a fair painted image on a table, might perhaps say, ecce egre- 
gium sculptile ; which doubtless every boy in the grammar school would laugh at." 

Now if the question were put, " what is the Latin for an image ?" sculptile, evidently, would 
not be the answer; and again, if it should be asked, what pesilim and massechoth signify? 
neither would the answer be ' a graven thing/ or ' a molten thing ;' as the prophet could not have 
had in view generally things molten or engraved, such as urns, emblematical devices, &c. In short, 
the question is not, by what artizan, whether " the painter, or the embroiderer," images were made ; 
but, whether they were not converted to purposes which were in themselves unlawful. This may 
account for the difference of the Hebrew words not being preserved in the different translations. 

72. bD3 Ward maintains that yX«wio» in the Greek, and sculptile in the Latin, signify a " thing 
different from an image and that those " false and heretical translators" formed their version in the 
present instance, for the purpose of bringing all holy images into contempt. He repeats the same 
charge of falsehood and heresy, respecting the translation of conjlatile. A few words, however, will 
prove it to be utterly unfounded, and that pesel and massecah signify one and the same thing, viz. 
image. The Prophet asks, " what profiteth the graven image, (^s) that the maker (nv») hath graven 
it?" then follows in apposition, sods " molten image.' 1 From this, it appears, that although one of the 
Hebrew words imports an image, which is 'graven,' and the other an image, which is molten ; yet, 
without distinction, they both refer to one and the same image. Even the Douay Translation of this 
text admits of a similar inference, inasmuch as ' the graven thing,' and the molten image, are identi- 
fied by those words. Besides, it would be absurd to suppose, that the Hebrew terms, expressive of what 
was graven or moiten, could, for instance, mean domestic utensils, rather than ' images,' to which they 
are evidently appropriated. 

In the prophecy of tJeremiah, a passage occurs, which confirms the truth of the preceding remarks. 

* Errata, page 67. 

f " Every founder is confounded by the graven image ; for his molten image is falsehood, and there is no breath in 
thern." C. x. v. 14. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 63 

This prophet, too, uses two different words ; the one signifying what is 'graven,' bvm, and the other 
what is ' melted/ isdj : and yet he does not preserve the distinction. Neither is it observed in any of 
the translations, since they generally declare an image to be intimated. The Vulgate reading, sculptile 
and conflatile, and even the Douay translation, viz. " every craftsman is confounded in the sculptil ; 
because it is false that he hath melted, and there is no spirit in them," expose Ward's ignorance and 
presumption, in asserting the Protestant Version, viz. ' image,' to be false. Is more than one thing 
here meant by both words ; or, what other thing can that be, except an image ? 

" Where," observes *Ward, " they should translate image, as imaginem falsam, a false image, 
they translate another thing, without any pretence either of Hebrew or Greek." A Hebrew con- 
cordance will convince any of Ward's popish readers, who can use it, that this charge is unsubstan- 
tiated by fact. That the Hebrew term mi» never signifies imago, as Jerome ; nor qxnotaix as the lxx, 
translated it, is attested by Isidorus Clarius. In his comments on this text he observes, t" that he 
(the prophet) says a false image ; in the Hebrew it is teaching or shewing forth a lie." Pagninus ren- 
ders the Hebrew phrase X ip» mm §docens mendacium, which is approved by Montanus. Thus, ac- 
cording to the only criterion by which the matter can be judged, that of the original languages, the 
distinction of true and false images falls to the ground ; since all images, which are used in religion, 
are false, and teachers of falsehood. Here it may be said, that a comparison cannot be drawn between 
a heathen idol, and a popish image ; as that may be the representative of a devil, this, of an angel. 
However true this may be, they are alike objectionable ; and although the prophet had only in view 
the condemnation of pagan idols, which were unavailing even to their very votaries in the day of cap- 
tivity ; yet when Ward quotes the passage, for the purpose of founding the doctrine of image worship 
on, what he calls, the pure and genuine interpretation of the college at Douay, he brings down the 
same censure on the popish worshippers of images, which was denounced against the idolatrous 
Jews. 

Calvin's note on the passage is too concise and appropriate to be omitted. He thus explains it, 
" mera illusio, idolum quodvis, quod falso docet ;" as inducing the ignorant to think that God is like 
the work of men's hands. It is, therefore, manifest that the Protestant Translation of the passage, 
which Ward brands as erroneous, is correct ; and that its faithfulness is sanctioned by some of the 
most eminent authorities. 

73. Apocryphal. It would not be necessary to offer any remark on this text, as the chapter in 
which it is found is uncanonical, but for an observation which Ward has thought proper to make. 
" They proceed so far as though Daniel had said, nothing made with hands was to be adored, not 
the Ark, nor the Propitiatory, no, nor the Holy Cross itself, on which our Saviour shed his precious 
blood." Nothing can be clearer than that neither of the two first was to be worshipped, as they were 
X"f«w"ii«j made with hands ; and that God only was to be worshipped, where they were ; while they 

* Errata, page 67. 

•j- " Quod ait imaginem falsam, Hebraice, est docens vel annuncians mendacium." 
X npw fallaciter dicere vel agere. Buxt. also Taylok's Concord. § See Column Vulgate Text, 



64 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 

were to be but reverently esteemed. As to the Cross, there is no reason why it should be worshipped, 
were it even possible to find it ; and not rather be broken in pieces, as the brazen Serpent was by 
*Hezekiah. It was held in no estimation by the Apostles, and when Nicodemus and Joseph of Ari- 
mathea had it in their power, they neglected its preservation. But as it is reported to have been 
found, (Doctor Milner himself gravely tells his readers that he has a precious fragment of it !) it is 
proper to state the opinion of St. Ambrose respecting it. t" Helena worshipped the king, not indeed the 
wood, for this is an heathenish error, and the vanity of ungodly men." It is not possible for language 
to convey a more express condemnation of the popish custom of paying adoration to the Rood. 

The story respecting its invention is one which shews, as forcibly as any thing can, the degraded 
state into which the reason of a man may be sunk, whose mind is enveloped by the mists of super- 
stition. Of this Doctor Milner is a melancholy instance ; a gentleman who, on every subject uncon- 
nected with religion, speaks like a man of talent and erudition ; but when he discusses theological 
points, he not unfrequently exhibits the most manifest signs of an impaired intellect. 

In a ^letter addressed to a friend from Cashel, dated July 21st, 1807, on the subject of the ruins 
of the Holy Cross in the county of Tipperary, he thus expresses himself : " You will be surprised, 
Sir, when I tell you, that the identical portion of the true Cross, for the sake of which this splendid 
fane was erected, is now in the possession of my respected friend and fellow traveller." Then, after 
accounting for the manner of its preservation, and declaring himself satisfied with the authenticity 
of the vouchers about this fact, he observes, " it is by far the ^largest piece of the Cross I ever met 
with, being about two inches and a half long, and about half an inch broad, but very thin. It is 
inserted in the lower shaft of an archiepiscopal cross, made of some curious wood, and inclosed in a 
gilt case." What a fatuity ; either that Doctor Milner should himself believe, or attempt to palm on 
others, so gross a fabrication ! ||Cyril of Jerusalem, whom he quotes, certainly speaks of the dis- 
covery of the Cross in the reign of Constantine, but unaccountably attributes its appearance in the 
midst of the heavens, to the reign of his successor Constantius. Here the pious bishop's ignorance 
of the period in which the miraculous Cross really appeared, betrays itself, and the contradiction, 
which shews itself on the face of the matter, and which cannot be reconciled either by him or his 
Irish Episcopal Brethren, deservedly sinks the credit of the Father's testimony. Besides, what credit 
is due to Cyril, whose rhetorical flourishes, on this and other subjects connected with it, seem to be 
the only foundation for Paulinus s improving them into real facts, when Eusebius, the ecclesiastical 
historian of the day, is silent about the matter ; when not even a word is spoken of Helena ; nor so 
much as an allusion is made to her by him ? 

* 2 Kings, c. xviii. v. 4. t De obit. Theodosii. + Inquiry, page 128. 

$ When Doctor Milner can seriously declare, that he has seen fragments of the accursed instrument of our Saviour's suffer- 
ing, who dare disbelieve his narrative of the miraculous cure of Winifred White ? Who, after this, can imply a doubt of the 
supernatural privilege communicated to the Virgin's milk ; of her image at Erbach shedding tears at the return of Easter 5 of the 
flight of the chapel of Loretto through the air ; and of the three heads of John the Baptist, as mentioned by Fleury, shewn at 
three different places at the same time ;— since they are stories which are equally well authenticated ? At least, the poor credu- 
lous Irish, who have ever been the dupes of juggling impostors, will swallow all his lying wonders as undoubted facts, reported 
as they are by the accredited agent of their Hierarchy, a Vicar Apostolic, a Bishop Castalalensis Ipse ! 

U Apud Baron. A. D. 353. No. 26. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



65 



Had Doctor Milner consulted Basnage's history of the Jews, he would have perceived, that the 
Empress Helena, who, he roundly affirms, found the true Cross, was not converted to Christianity at 
the time fixed on by popish writers for its discovery, and that this want of chronological coincidence 
proves the tradition respecting the Cross entirely groundless. That author, in his Continuation of 
Josephus, brings forward the most incontrovertible proofs, that the merit of discovering the wood 
upon which Jesus Christ suffered, is to be ascribed to a Jew named Judas, and not to Helena. For, 
Jirst, he argues from Eusebius's taking no notice of the matter, although reported to have taken place 
in the immediate neighbourhood of his bishoprick, which he would not have done, had Helena, the 
mother of his hero, really made the discovery, and had God recognised her zeal by a public miracle — 
such as that of re- animating a dead body when placed on the Cross on which Christ suffered; a cir- 
cumstance which distinguished it from those of the thieves. He then adduces the testimony of Gre- 
gory of Tours, the most ancient historian of any who have spoken of the discovery of the Cross. 
This writer gives the glory of it to Judas. Basnage, afterwards, proceeds to say, that Scheistrate, the 
Vatican librarian, thinks that Gregory of Tours took this fact from an ancient catalogue of the Popes, 
in which the discovery of the Cross, and baptism of Judas, are placed under the Pontificate of Euse- 
bius. The same observation is made by Holstenius, another Vatican librarian. 61 These proofs,'' 
observes Basnage, " are not questionable — they come from good hands. The ancient historians of 
the Popes furnish them, and their librarians publish them, and at the same time give glory to the 
truth." The matter, then, as to time and circumstance, stands briefly thus : Eusebius was Pope before 
Constantine was a Christian : Judas found the Cross of Christ, in Eusebius's Pontificate ; therefore 
Helena, who was still an idolater and an heathen, could not have had any part in the transaction. So 
that the historian has committed a gross error in not accurately computing the years of Constantine, and 
his conversion. Dr. Milner and his Irish Episcopal Brethren will, no doubt, endeavour, as Baronius has 
attempted to do, to get over this difficulty, by associating Helena with Judas, and by giving to one the 
glory of pointing out, and to the other, that of honouring, the Cross of our Saviour. But their 
attempt will prove abortive, since it must be founded, as has been just shewn, on a perfect ana- 
chronism. 

As Judas has not in any way accounted for the preservation of the Cross for the period of three 
hundred years it had remained under ground, the world would have still continued in ignorance, on 
this head, had not another Jew, who persevered in his religion, obligingly communicated the following 
particulars. " Abraham," he says, " being one day at the conflux of the rivers Jor and Dan, and 
perceiving a man weeping, he advised him to plant three firebrands, and to water them with forty buck- 
ets of water, until they struck root, when God would be appeased. The penitent' obeyed, and after- 
wards related, that the firebrands not only shot out, but that after they were transplanted into different 
places, they united and made but one tree !" The Jew's design was to make the Patriarch Abraham 
the author of a miracle. And surely the story he tells respecting the firebrands is as credible as that 
of Doctor Milner about a piece of the real cross being still in existence. 

* Book vi. c. xiv. p. 543. 



K 



fiG A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



SECTION XII. — THE LIMBUS PATRUM AND PURGATORY. 



1 

Book. Ch.Ver. < 


3rig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 1 


IhemishVersion.j 


Seza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 156S. ( K.James'sBiblei6'n 


Acts ii. ( 27- . 


On lyy.xra- < 
yy> p,a £15 a^u. 


uioniam non 
dereliuques 

animam 
neam in in- 
ferno. 


because thou I 
wilt not leave 
my soul in hell. 


quoniam non 

dereliuques 
animam meam 
apud inferos. 


*in the grave. 


because thou wilt 
not leave my soul 
in ' hell.' 

(74) 


Genesis 
xxxvii. 35. 


Ka.Ta.Q'/iC'OfA.tx.i 
7rt»Gwt £i; ' ctSa. 


descendam 
ad filium 

meumlugens 

in infernum. 
Pagn. ad 

sepulchrum. 
t 


I will descend 
unto my son 
into hell 
mourning. 




into the 'grave.' 


I will go down 
into the ' grave ' 
unto my son 
mourning. 

(75) 


Ibid. xlii. 48. 


KaTa|tT£ 
to y»5"a? fifia- 
?.t"TU{ It; "aoV 


deducetis ca- 
nos meos 
cum dolore 
ad inferos. 
Pagn. ad 
sepulchrum. 


you shall bring 
down my hoar 
hairs with sor- 
row unto hell. 




* grave.' 


Then shall ye 
bring down my 
gray hairs with 
sorrow to the 
' grave.' 

(76) 


Ibid. xliv. 

O t\ Q. 1 
21). 41. 




ad inferos. 
Pagn. ad 

sepulchrum. 


unto hell. 




' grave. ' 


to the grave. 

(77) 


i Kings ii. 
6. 9- 




ad inferos. 
Pagn. ad 

sepulchrum. 


unto hell. 




to the ' grave. 


to the ' grave.' 

(78) 



Marked thus * altered to the present reading A. D. 1611. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



74, * %b ' AJj]£. Not one of the twelve texts adduced here by Ward establishes the doctrine 
of Limbus Patrum, or Purgatory ; since, even according to the Rhemish translation, it is obscure. 
Where the Hebrew word Sheol is not rendered sepulchrum in the Vulgate, Pagninus usually adopts 
it, as preferable to infernum ; and in the fPsalms, Montanus substitutes fovea for inferno. Jit is a 
collective term for all the parts of the earth and sea, which are below the surface of the one, or the 
bottom of the other: e. g. Jonah was said to be in the midst of Sheol, when carried by the whale 
into the depths of the sea. It also signifies the invisible world, and but very seldom the state of the 
damned. §Rivetus pertinently observes that the word was understood by the Hebrews to signify, in 
general, the place of the dead. In this sense it is understood by the first commentators, and in the 
best lexicons. In short, St. Peter interprets the phrase, as of the resurrection of Christ. (| David 
says, " thou wilt not leave my soul in hell ;" i. e. my life in the grave: and this he said in a prophe- 
tical spirit, not of himself, but of Christ. For iftfs anima is as often taken for the body of a dead 
man, as hell is for the grave. 

According to «[yWard, the heretical doctrine of the Protestants " includes many erroneous 
branches: that all the holy Patriarchs, Prophets, and other holy men, of the Old Testament, went 
not into the third place ; but that they were in heaven, before our Blessed Saviour had suffered death 
for their redemption.'' However Ward might think, it is perfectly reconcilable with scripture, (see 
texts Matt. c. viii. v. 1 1. and Luke, c. xiii. v. 28.) that Christ's death should be considered to have a 
retrospective as well as a prospective efficacy ; inasmuch as he was the lamb slain from the foundation 
of the world. For, those who were justified by faith in his blood, before it was actually shed, re- 
ceived the same reward for their righteousness, which those will, who have since been justified by the 
same means. 

**St. Augustine, on this text, says, " we are entirely ignorant of a third place ; neither do we 
in the holy scriptures discover it to exist,' 1 Thus, Protestants do not believe that Christ descended 
into any third place after his death ; and if, as is contained in an article of their creed, they profess a 
belief that he descended into hell, it is, f-f" that dying in the similitude of a sinner, his soul went to 
the place where the souls of departed men were, thus wholly undergoing the law of death :" or, to use 
the words of ^another eminent Prelate of their Church, " Christ was in that invisible place, which 
is the appointed habitation of departed souls, in the interval between death and the general resurrec- 
tion." But, besides, that Abraham's bosom is not that place which Papists denominate Limbus Pat- 

* From "jnu- to crave, parkh. It is rendered sepulchrum by Buxtorf ; pulvis and sepulchrum in two versions in Walton's 
Polyglott. 'A^s is rendered Orcus, Tartarus, mors, locus tenebrosus, by Hedericus and Scapula, and Infernus, in the Vulgate 
Latin reading. It is also rendered " Orcus, fovea, in qua conduntur mortui," by Faber, in his Thesaurus. 

t 86. v. 13. + See Taylor's Heb. Concord. 

§" Ebraeis significat locum mortuorum, secundum corpus el secundum animam." Vid. Pol. Synops. in !oc, 

il Psalm, xvi. v. 10. <\\ Errata, page 69. 

** " Tertium penitus ignoramus, imo nec esse in sanctis Scrip'uris inveniinus." 
tf Pearson on the Creed. 
t't Sermon, in 1804, on 1 Pet. c. iii. v. 20. by the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph. 

K 2 



68 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



bum, appears from *St. Luke's Gospel, where Christ, addressing the penitent thief, tells him, " to 
day thou shall be with me in paradise." Now St. Paul determines paradise to imply a place of ascent, 
and not of descent; as he speaks of being t" caught up into paradise." Secondly, Abraham's 
bosom, instead of being on the border, as the word limbus implies, is Xj'ar distant from hell. 
Thirdly, it is a place of comfort ; and, lastly, there is a great gulph intervening. All these circum- 
stances shew, that the doctrine of an intermediate state of suffering, from which the merits of Christ 
cannot redeem sinners, is not only not warranted by, but is even contrary to scripture. This tenet has 
been maintained by the Popish Church from the seventh century, since which period it has been a 
prolific source of gain to its clergy. 

75. 76. 77. " How absurd, also," says §Ward, " is this corruption of theirs, I will go down 
into the grave unto my son ; as though Jacob thought that Joseph his son had been buried in a grave ; 
whereas, a little before, he said, that some xiild beast had devoured him.' 1 By the former expression 
of Jacob is merely meant, that he would die, and consequently be united to his son in soul, though 
not in body. The same form of expression is often used when men speak of going to their departed 
friends, although their bodies may have been burned, drowned, or otherwise lie unburied. Thus 
||Leigh judiciously observes, that "Jacob would go down mourning into Sheol to his son, nei- 
ther to the place of the damned, nor into the grave properly so called ; but into the general recep- 
tacle of the dead." Moreover, where gray hairs are spoken of, Jacob must mean his body, and con- 
sequently the grave, and not hell ; as it might naturally be asked, whither should the hoary head go, 
but to the grave ? Isidorus Clarius himself renders ""iw in the text, Gen. xxxvii. 35. sepulchrum ; 
and when, in other places, he uses infernus, he usually explains it, by a note, to signify sepulchrum. 
It is now submited to the reader, whether the Protestant Translation of the word deserve the appellation 
of an " absurd corruption" or not 

78. Here David meant no more, than that his son should slay Joab for his crimes. When he 
speaks of Shimei, he lays on Solomon a similar injunction : " but his hoar head bring thou down to 
the grave with blood." This sentence evidently cannot be understood of his soul going to hell, 
from the mention made of ' blood? and can only signify his old body. In Pagninus's Lexicon, 
although Sheol be indifferently rendered hell and grave {infernus et sepulchrum), yet in this text 
its signification is confined to the latter term. The following passage from ^"Numbers is not less to 
the point, than the above instances, since in it the earth is said to have opened her mouth, and to 
have swallowed up the rebels ; " and they, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into 
( nSsif ) Sheol." As, then, it cannot be said, that the men, their tents and cattle, went down 
to ' hell/ what other interpretation, than pit or grave, can the word receive? 

**St. Augustine, on the text just cited, makes the following comment: " and they themselves, 

* C. xxiii. v. 43. f 2 Cor. c. xii. v. 4. } Luke, c. xvi. v. 23.. 

§ Errata, page 69. 8 Vid. Crit. Sacra, p. 238. If C. xvi. v. 23. 

** Et descenderunt ipsi, et omnia qnaecnnque sunt eis, viventes ad inferos. Notandnm secundum locum terrenum, dictos 
esse inferos, hoc est, &c," Quest, super Num. lib. iv. c. 29. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



6P 



and all that they had, descended alive, into {Inferos) the lower parts. It is to be noted, that Inferi 
is spoken of as an earthly place, that is, the lower parts of the earth, &c." Thus he shews that 
Infemus and Inferi do not always signify hell ; while Ward maintains they are as proper for hell as 
panis is for bread. There can be no question as to whose authority the preference is to be given. 
Lastly, in the *Psalms a passage much to the purpose occurs: " Our bones are scattered at the 
grave's (Sueol) mouth." This is without dispute a more suitable place for dead men's bones than 
' hell,' as it is translated in the Douay Bible. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBible 1611 


Psalm lxxxvi. 
13. 


yMTura.ru. 


et eruisti ani- 
mam meam 
ex inferno 
inferiori. 


Thou hast de- 
livered my soul 
from the lower 
hell. 


Mont. 
ex fovea in- 
feriori. 


' lowest grave. ' 


And thou hast 
delivered my soul 
from the * lowest 
hell. ' 

(79) 


Ibid. Ixxxix. 
. 48. 


pv&trai rrrt 
avru ix 


Eruet (Ward 
reads emit) 

animam 
suam manu 
inferi. 


Shall he deliver 
his soul from 
the hand of 
hell. 




of the ' grave.' 


Shall he deliver 
his soul from the 
hand of the 
c grave. ' 

(80) 



KaTWTaT8. In whatever sense the words of the Royal Psalmist be taken, 
whether he were rescued from the greatest dangers, or eternal death ; the limb us patrum cannot be 
considered as hinted at in the most distant manner. The Douay Jesuits,, in conformity with the 
Vulgate, adopted (inferiori) ' lower,' the comparative degree, which Ward would never have termed 
the ' true ' translation, were he not radically ignorant of the Hebrew language ; alike disregarding 

* cxli. v. 7- 



70 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



the import of the Hebrew term, which simply implies deep, low, &c. ; and the Septuagint version of 
it, viz. k*wt«tb, lowest, deepest. Admitting, then, their consistency in this instance, in being guided 
by the Latin copies, and totally rejecting the Hebrew and Greek ; how comes it to pass that in trans- 
lating a parallel passage in *Deuteronomy, they overlook, the f Vulgate reading, at least that edited by 
Pope Sixtus, (viz. deorsim) and following the Hebrew and Greek, which are critically the same as 
those in the above text, give their translation in the superlative degree ? This strange and arbitrary 
way of proceeding, likewise observable in many other places, forms a striking contrast with the conduct 
of the Protestant Translators, whose undeviating aim has been to elicit the divine meaning, and then 
convey it in literal, plain, and unsophisticated language, without regard to any particular purpose. 

According to +Ward, St. Jerome says, " Before the coming of Christ, Abraham was in hell : 
after his coming, the thief was in paradise." Ward acts unfairly towards the Father, by introducing 
his words iu the shape of a decided opinion, whereas he himself turned them into an allegory to set 
forth the virtue of Christ's redemption. But had he pronounced authoritatively on the subject, that 
would not alter the state of the case, as there is no intimation in scripture, that the Patriarchs and 
Prophets were removed to a different place, after the death of Christ, from what they had been in 
before that event took place. In §St. Matthew s Gospel, it is said, " many shall come from the east 
and from the west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of Heaven." 
||St. Luke likewise records, that, at the gathering in of the Gentiles, those Patriarchs were in the 
kingdom of Heaven, and consequently were found in the same place by them, as by Lazarus. 

*H" But," says Ward, " the same holy doctor (viz. Jerome) resolves it, that Abraham and Lazarus 
also were in hell, but in a place of great rest and refreshing." Having thus endeavoured to obviate 
the objections that both Abraham and Lazarus were in Heaven, he then subjoins what he calls St. 
Augustine's interpretation of the text, " that the lower hell is the place wherein the damned are tor- 
mented; the higher hell is that wherein the souls of the just rested, calling both places by the name 
of hell." Now, as to Jerome, he does not explicitly declare himself on the subject ; indeed, he makes 
but a slight allusion to it ; while Augustine, at the very commencement of the discussion of the 
question, relative to the nethermost hell, declares his ignorance, and goes no farther, at most, than 
a bare conjecture. He sets out with a supposition, that the world, in which we live, is infernum 
superius; and the place, whither the dead go, internum inferius: that Christ Came to the former 
by his birth, and to the latter by his death. He then adds, **" perhaps even in hell, there is some 
part lower, in which the ungodly, which have much sinned, are delivered, &c." His conclusion is 
equally uncertain : " therefore, perhaps, between these two hells, in one of which the souls of the 
righteous rested ; in the other, the souls of the wicked are tormented, &c." He then winds up the 
whole with an argument, a fortiori, to prove, that Paradise, or Abraham's bosom, is Heaven : 
" how much more, then, may that bosom of Abraham, after this life, be called paradise." Tertul- 

* C. ixxii. v. 22. f Some copies have ' brferiorem. t Errata, page 71. 

§ C. villi v. 11. I C. xiii v. 2S. f Errata, page71. 

** Fortassis enim npud inferos est aliqua pars inferior, &c. . , . Ergo inter ista fortasse duo inferna quorum in uno, &c." St. 
Aug. iu Psal. lxxxv v. 13. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. ?1 

lian speaks a language the very reverse of that attributed io him by Ward : " his words are, " hell is 
one thing, as I think, and Abraham's bosom another thing, &c." And as for Chrysostom, who is 
brought forward on the occasion, he may be considered as speaking allegorical !y of the effect of 
Christ's death and redemption. 

From the text itself, part of which is prefixed (o this article, Protestants infer, that the souls of 
all the faithful are delivered from hell ; that is, that their deliverance is such as that for which David, in 
his life time, praised God. The receptacle of the reprobate souls, in the Hebrew, is called Gehinnom, 
orToPHETH; they are, however, properly, the appellations of the place where the idolatrous Jews 
burned their children alive to Moloch. In Greek and Latin, gefienna is used for the same. 

80. E/£ p£SJpO£. From the hand ; i. e. from the violence of hades, or the grave. Such is the 
obvious sense of the passage; for the last clause of the verse is but a repetition of the pteceding one. 
Moreover, what confirms the strict propriety of preferring the word ' grave,' as a translation, to the 
word ' hell,' is, that the Hebrew, vm which is rendered ' soul,' does not signify the spiritual part, or 
reasonable *soul, but the life, or the whole person of man ; who, therefore, may more fitly be said to 
be delivered from the hand, or power of the grave. 

The doctrine concerning the purification of departed souls by a certain fire, was well un- 
derstood by the heathen Poets and Philosophers. Eusebius relates that it was held by Plato; their works 
testify the same thing of Homer and Virgil. To a period therefore of 400 years, at least, before Christia- 
nity, may the origin of this doctrine be traced. Certain it is that it had no foundation in the primitive 
Church; and although attempts were made to introduce it in the fifth century, yet Pope Gregory the 
Great first gave it countenance. The invasions of the Barbarians from the north, and the almost total 
extinction of learning, contributed not a little to its reception into the Church, which now became influ- 
enced by visions and miracles. The fires of ./Etna and Vesuvius were at this time also supposed to be 
kindled to torment departed souls. Some were seen broiling on gridirons, and others roasting on spits. 
Nay, the very ways to purgatory were discovered ; one in Sicily, another in Italy, and a third in Ireland ! 
In the succeeding centuries it gradually gained ground, until at last, assuming a settled shape, it sunk 
into an article of faith at the Council of Trent, in the sixteenth century, continuing from its first propa- 
gation to that time, and indeed to the present day, to heap riches on its professors. It is, however, but 
fair to state, that this absurd doctrine has, from time to time, been protested against ; nay, openly ridi- 
culed by men of eminence in the Popish communion. Claud, Bishop of Turin, and Peter Bruges, &c. 
opposed it, and even Richelieu himself of later times, sported with it as a fit subject of merriment. 
His pleasantry is thus spoken of : " f How many Masses " says he to his chaplain, " would serve to fetch 
a soul out of purgatory ?" Perceiving his hesitancy, the Cardinal solves his doubt in this humorous 
way ; " just so many would serve to fetch a soul out of purgatory, as snow balls would serve to heat an 
oven" 



* " There is no passage where ivsj hath undoubtedly this meaning." Parkh. in loc. 
\ See Anecd. of distinguished Persons, and Preserv. against Popery, Vol. ii. Tit. viii. p. 116. 



72 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



Book, Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza'sLatinText 


Bps. Bible, 156S. 


K.James 'sBible 


Hos. xiii. 14. 


Sym. legit. 

scrotal h w?i>)y5) 
an Saucers, tao- 
fx,a,i "aiNj, &C. 


ero mors tua, 
mors;mor- 
sus tuus ero, 
inferne. 


I will be thy 
death, O death, 
thy bite (Ward 
reads ' sting') 
willl be, hell. 


Mont, evopes- 
tis tua, mors ; 
ero excisio tua, 
inferne. 


O e grave.' 


death, I will be 
thy plagues ; O 
grave, I will be thy 
destruction. 

(81) 


1, Cor. xv. 
55. 


n« <ra, (lecture, 
to xevrgov j itH 
era, 'aiJn, To 
unto;; 


Ubiest,mors, 
stimulus 

tuus ? ubi est, 
inferne, vic- 
toria tua ? 

N. B. In se- 
veral copies 

of the Vulg. 

the reading is 

'mors,'& not 
inferna, as 
quoted by 
Ward. 


Where is, O 
death,thy sting? 
whereis,Ohell, 

thy victory? 

N. B. The 
reading is ' 
aeatn, ana not 
hell, in the Rh. 

N. T. 1582. 

Also in the 
Edinb. edit, of 
1804. 


Ubi tua, O 
mors, victoria? 
ubi tuus, O se- 
pulchrum, sti- 
mulus ? 

I\/^^'^^T , T*r>r\ Anrc 

aoNj 

sepulchrum. 


O ' grave.' 


O death, where 
is thy sting ? O 
' grave, ' where 
is thy victory ? 

(82) 


.TS. VI. o. 


EV 0£ T4) ao>) 
Tl{ E|o/it0^y))£r£- 
T«6< col ; 


in inferno 
autem quis 
confitebitur 
tibi ? Pagn. 
in sepulchro, 
&c. 


and in hell who 
shall confess to 
thee? 




in the ' grave. ' 


in the ' grave ' 
who shall give 
thee thanks ? 

(83) < 


Prov. xxvii. 
20. 


'AoNj? >cat aw- 

XeI* Bit E/xTTIjU.- 


infernus et 
perditio nun- 
quam im- 
plentur. 
Pagn. sepul- 
chrum {yittv) 
et perditio 
non satura- 
buntur. 


hell and de- 
struction are 

never full. 
Edinb. edit. 
1610,— Hell & 
perdition are 
never filled. 




*the 'grave.' 


It) *' !' -H ) t fi f! SmO| 

hell and destruc- 
tion are never 
full. 

(84) , 



Marked thus * altered to the present reading A. IX 161 1. 



3l„ atop ^Destruction. The Lxx. rendered this word but ' sting,' which that Greek term 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



73 



implies, is not forcible enough ; as the Hebrew word, according to the best *authorities, signifies 
what destroys at the same time that it pierces : consequently ' destruction ' is the best interpretation 
that can be given it, being comprehensive enough to take in the full import of the original term. <m® 
here also can only mean grave ; for the prophet declares to the people, that if they repented, God 
would redeem them from the jaws of death and the 'grave;' or, that he would not cut them off in 
such numbers, that they should be thrown confusedly into ( scil. Jbvea) a fpit, as the slain are in 
battle. Besides, he is not here speaking of the state of the dead. 

" If," says JWard, " I ask them what is Hebrew, Greek, or Latin, for hell, must they not tell 
me bpw 'Ahi, Infernus?" It has been already shewn, that the Hebrew word primarily signifies a 
grave, or a receptacle of dead bodies, and but seldom hell, and even then only in a figurative sense. 
In fact, there is no proper word, in any of the three languages, for that invisible place, in which the 
souls of the wicked are kept. 

Although it be of little consequence, in what acceptation the Greek and Latin terms, which are 
themselves but translations, are taken ; yet, as Ward's assertion respecting them may be disproved by 
a few references, it may not be improper to advert to them. That then, is not used exclusively 
for ' hell,' may be ascertained in the Apocryphal writings. In the book of §Wisdom, the Vulgate 
translation of it is mors, in one passage; and, inferi, which is given it in the ||other, implies the 
same thing ; as the wicked and ungodly are spoken of, who held the mortality of the soul, and its dis- 
appearance into thin air like vapour, and said, that " none was known to return from the grave." 
In the Hfirst book of Samuel, and in the book of **Tobit, the word bears precisely the same significa- 
tion. In the book of ttBaruch too, it is taken for ' grave ;' as he says, the dead who are in (Sheol) 
khi, shall not praise God ; whereas the souls of the righteous, which were in Paradise, did so. 
Hence it is manifest that iS» s , in its general sense, means a place to receive the dead. With the Latin 
word infernus, which implies any low place, the Protestant Translators had as little to do as with the 
Greek, since it was not from that language they made their translation. However, there are not 
authorities wanting to prove, that it too is not exclusively confined to the word " hell." St. Jerome 
himself, whom the Popish doctors so implicitly follow, takes it, in a general sense, to mean any place 
which receives the souls of the departed, and not where they were included before the coming of 
Christ; thus giving no intimation whatever concerning the limbus. He expresses himself clearly on 
this head: JJ <! whatever separates brothers, is to be called hell, Sec." 

§§Ward concludes his interrogatories, respecting these words, in the following manner : ie If I 
ask them what word they will bring from those languages to signify ' grave,' must they not say, " -op, 
t*0os, Sepulchrum ?" Surely it cannot be looked on as a proof that Sheol must signify ' hell,' because 
the words just cited, in their respective languages, signify grave, as if there could not be several 
words expressive of the same thing. So far from Sheol and Keber signifying different things, that 

* Rivetus says, " quicquid pertundendo et perfodiendo repente penetrat." Pol. Synops. in loc. 

f " Sepulchrum hie intelligit fossam, in quam toti populi conjiciuntur, ut fit in publicis cladibus." Grotius. 
X Errata, page 71. § C. xvi.v. 13. [| C. ii. v. 1. «|f C. ii. V. 6. ** C. xiii. v. 2. ff C. ii. v. J7, 

XX " Quicquid igitur separat fratres, infernus est appellandus," &c. §§ Errata, page 71. 

L 



74 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



they are sometimes joined together to express the *same thing : Scil. ' grave.' This is a further 
proof, were any necessary, that Sheol, except in a secondary sense, does not bear any other signifi- 
cation than grave or pit. The f Rabbi Solomon, too, says that Keber is the proper interpretation of 
Sheol. 

82. A J*]. It is evident that the prophet, in the text belonging to the preceding number, foretold 
even greater than temporal deliverances from the power of death, in the gospel state ; it being in this 
sense St. Paul interprets his words, when he exclaims, " O death, where is thy sting, &c." ^St. Jerome, 
in handling the present text, makes the following inference: " therefore, that which the Apostle hath 
interpreted of our Lord's resurrection, we neither can, nor dare we, interpret it otherwise." Thus, 
in the opinion of that father, as the passage alludes to the resurrection of Christ, it is fitter to use the 
word e grave,' than ' hell.' Moreover, the word 'grave,' coming immediately after the word 'death,' 
(with which it is immediately connected) in the very next clause of the sentence, but more fully 
points out the earnestness of the speaker. 

As neither the reading of the Vulgate, nor of the Rhemish version, which Ward used, is the same 
as those extant, it would be desirable to know what copies he employed. There are strong grounds for 
suspecting him to have forged these extracts, for the purpose of making out his case; but, it is hoped, 
Doctor Milner, or some of his ' Episcopal Brethren,' will step forward to vindicate his character, 
by affording the necessary information. 

The reader will perceive, on inspecting the texts belonging to this number in the columns, that 
the order of the words is not the same in all. This difference is not greater than what is found to 
exist in some Greek manuscripts ; e. g. the Vatican, §Codex Ephremi, &c. and will account for the 
text, in the Protestant Bible of l6l 1, varying in its arrangement from the Latin text of Beza. 

83. ||E£0|U,oAoyH](T£Ta/. The Douay translation of this text is, " In hell who shall con- 
fess thee ?" This, if admitted as the true one, would decidedly make against the error of limbus 
patrum. For as the word 1 hell,' in the Popish sense, means Abraham's bosom, a place of joy and 
happiness ; with what truth can it be said, that the souls of the faithful, who are conveyed thither, 
should be so ungrateful as not to confess unto God, to acknowledge his mercy, and praise him for the 
benefits he conferred on them ? Nothing, therefore, can be more evident, than that by Sheol, here 
also, is meant the ' grave,' or place of death, in which no man ' confesses' or gives thanks to God; 
and that it is for this cause alone David asks for life, that he may offer his praises to God, in his 
church. His reasoning seems to be this, preserve me from Sheol, or there being neither wis- 
dom nor remembrance of God there ; for, if I die, who will remain ' to praise you,' or ' to give you 
thanks.' However, neither the one translation nor the other decides the disputed point; since the 

* Rabbi Abraham on Job, c. xvii. v. 13. f Comment, in Gen. c. xxxvii. v. 35. 

+ " Itaque quod ille in resurrectionem interpretatus est Domini, nos aliter interpretari, nec possumus, nec audemus." 

k " Locum permulant y.ivrgov et my.o( in B. C." See Griesbach's New Testament, vol. ii. p. 285. 
U St. Matthew uses the same verb in c. xi. v. 25, of his Gospel, which Beza thus explains, " laudo, et gratias ago, gra- 
tutor, \e\gloriam till tribuo" Vid. Annot. in loc. Parkhurst says, the Lxx. generally apply it in the last sense ; viz. to glorify, 
answering to the Hebrew nnh, which they frequently render by ctmm to praise. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 75 

non-existence of purgatory is as far from being determined by the Protestant, as its existence is by 
the Popish version. 

84. ' AJ*]£« Although this term be rendered alike in both Protestant and Popish Bibles ; yet 
that gives no colour whatever for establishing a doctrine so offensive to reason and common sense, 
as that of purgatory. It is extraordinary enough that, in this passage, there exists a discordance 
(trifling it is to be sure, but still it is sufficient to shew the great inaccuracy, if not the dishonesty, 
which he practised in making quotations;) between that which Ward gives as the reading of the 
Douay Bible, and what is really there : both are given in the proper *column. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568; 


K. James'sBible 1611 


Heb. v. 7. 




exauditus est 
pro sua reve- 
rentia. 


was heard for 
his reverence. 


et exauditus 
precibus, libera- 
tus ex metu. 

- 


' in that which 
he feared.' 


and was heard 1 in 
that he feared.' 

(85) 



85. Et/Aa£s>a£. This term seems to express fear of any kind, but here, a horrid fear ; it 
also implies a religious reverence, namely, to God. The Protestant Translators in rendering it, " in 
that," i. e. inasmuch as, " he feared," were, it is obvious, desirous of avoiding the ambiguity of the 
original. And when they perceived the text admitted of the Popish interpretation, viz. " for his 
piety," they, with their accustomed fairness and candour, inserted it in the margin of their own bible. 
E^ai3v)G 61 5 in the tEpistle to the Hebrews, is rendered by them " moved with fear," and by the Rhe- 
mists, ' fearing.' But in the jActs particularly, the fear entertained by the chief captain ' for Paul's' 
safety, evidently does not mean a pious, or religious fear ; which sense Jerome confirms by rendering 
fvXaftiOsi?, metuens. The same translator gives timoratus for ^c£- K in §St. Luke's Gospel. Montanus 
renders it veritus, and the Protestant and Popish translators, " fearing." II In Joshua, too, the 
Septuagint reading is mm which Pagninus renders timore, and Montanus, pro: solicitudine. 

The Protestant translation of the text is " for fear f while the Douay one is, strange to say, " with 
that meaning." This last signification is most arbitrary, and differs widely, as well from the Hebrew 
as from the Greek. It may, therefore, be fairly concluded, that a more perfect version of the passage 
could not be given, than that which it obtains in the Protestant Bible : nor a more natural interpre- 
tation than the following one which is assigned it by the Protestant Church — that it did not arise 
from that religious reverence which he possessed, but from the actual terror of the trial he had to 
encounter, " that he was heard," and assurance given him by his father, that he would raise him from 
the dead, and thus deliver him from his fear of being under the dominion of death. Fulke defends 
I the genuineness of the version " in that he feared" against the attacks of the Rhemists, with great 
success. Having referred to the Syrian translation, where the text in question is rendered " from 

* See column, ' Rhemish Version/ number 84. 
f C. xi. v. % t C. xxiii. v. 10. § C. ii. V. 25. [j C. xxii. v. 24. 

l 2 ij«feoA^"ty<* 



76 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 

fear," he proves, from parallel passages in the Scriptures, and from the expositions of several of the 
ancient Fathers, that the Protestant rendering is the only one of which the passage would admit. He 
then concludes with observing, " our interpretation is agreeable to the analogy of faith, and confirms 
an article of it, that Christ descended into hell, and not only suffered bodily pains, but also great 
sorrow and anguish of soul : that these sufferings were necessary for our redemption, and that he 
obeyed, because death was a necessary part of his obedience and sacrifice." Beza, in his annotations, says, 
that, notwithstanding Christ's deep humility, yet " Nec despondit animum, aut desperavit, spei nostras 
auctor." And *Junius, no less eminent as a commentator, thus sums up the sense of the passage : 
" Ita acceptus fuit deo, ut quern metum ex peccatis nostris, psenisque meritis, et sponsione sua, secun- 
dum hominem conceperat, is a Deo Patre levaretur absolutissime, testata remissione peccatorum a 
abolendam maledictionem nostram.'' After this clear and impartial exposition ; can any be found 
weak enough to subscribe to Ward's opinion, that the Protestant translation of it is a fmost damnable 
corruption ; or believe him when he says, that the sense in which Protestants understand this text, 
was invented by Calvin, to defend his " blasphemous doctrine, that our Saviour Jesus Christ, upon 
the cross, was horribly afraid of damnation, and that he was in the very sorrows and torments of the 
damned: and that this was his descending into hell : and that otherwise he descended not ?" Although 
it be foreign from the object of these pages, to vindicate any other tenets than those of the Church 
of England, yet so palpable an injustice is done to Calvin, that a regard to truth suggests the neces- 
sity of giving a brief statement of his view of the matter. He distinctly says, that Christ's fear 
arose not from distrust, but from the sense of his human nature, in feeling the wrath of God, which 
was infinitely more heavy on his soul, than any torments were on his body. He likewise says, that 
from the same source proceeded his astonishment, tears, strong cry, drops of blood, his soul being 
" exceeding sorrowful," as is so affectingly described by t Matthew and §Mark ; and lastly, an angel 
appearing from heaven to strengthen him in the last sad conflict, when he cried, " my God, my God, 
why hast thou forsaken me ?" So far from this being a blasphemy, Calvin contended, and with 
justice too, that it is a true, holy, and comfortable doctrine, that Christ, for the redemption of the 
souls of men, suffered so severely in his own soul, as was unequivocally declared by the forementioned 
signs. 

It has been already l|stated at large, that Protestants understand that article of their creed, which 
sets forth the descent of Christ into hell, to signify his entering into the Ustate of the dead, and 
thereby undergoing the law of death. There is nothing more certain, than that the Evangelists would 
not have passed over in silence so important an article as that held by the Popish Church, viz. Christ's 
going into hell, and delivering thence the souls of the Patriarchs, and other righteous persons, had 
there been any grounds for their recording it. Protestants, by their interpretation, ascribe a more 
exalted triumph to Christ over hell, than the Papists; indeed, were he supposed only to have descended 
(as the latter say) into the limbus patrum, a place of rest; he could scarcely be said to have gained 
any triumph whatever. 

* Vid. Pol. Synops.in loc. f Errata, page fl. 

% C. xxvi. v. 38. § C. xiv. v. 34. I! See number 74. 

% The English language does not supply a single word expressive of this meaning. Hell in its present acceptation implies 
the place of punishment, although it is said originally to have implied a place of concealment, being derived from the Saxon ]2elaji 
to hide. See Diction. Sax, et Goth. Lat. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 

SECTION XIII.— JUSTIFICATION AND THE REWARD OF GOOD WORKS, 



77 



Book. Ch. Ver. Orig. Greek. Vulgate Text 



Rom. ii. 



Luke i. 6. 



(AUTOi TH VOftS 

<£ uAaa'ff')). 



Haav St ctiy.tt.iot 
ctfj.^>oTe^oi tvoi- 
niov tu dsn. ico- 

xait oix.xia)u.a?t 



Si igitur prae 
putium justi 
tias legis cus 
todiat. 



Erant autem 
justi ambo 
ante Deum, 
ncedentes in 

omnibus 
mandatis et 
justificationi- 
bus Domini 
sine 
querela. 



RhemishVersion 



If then the 
prepuce keep 
the justices of 
the law. 



Beza's Latin Text 



And they were 
both just be- 
fore God, walk 
ing in all the 

command- 
ments and jus 
tifications of 
our Lord with 
out blame. 



Itaque si prae 
putium jura 
legis observet. 



erant autem 
justi ambo in 
conspectu Dei, 

incedentes in 
omnibus man- 
datis et ritibus 
Domini incul- 
pate. 



Bps. Bible, 1568. 



If the uncir 
cumcision keep 

' the ordi- 
nances ' of the 
law. 



' both righ- 
teous,' &c. in all 
the command- 
ments and 
' ordinances,' 
&c. 



K. James's Biblei6n 



Therefore if the 

uncircumcision 
keep the ' righ- 
teousness ' of the 
law. 



(86) 



And they were 
both righteous be- 
fore God, walking 
in all the com- 
mandments and 
ordinances of the 
Lord blameless. 



(87) 



86. AlX&UrtfJLCtTCt. The precepts or righteousness ; i. e. the righteous acts of the law, whe- 
ther moral or ceremonial. This text by no means ascertains the sufficiency of works, neither does it 
appear, from the way in which it is translated in the Protestant Bible, that faith is held up in oppo- 
sition to works. When it is considered what stress Protestants lay on works, as well as on faith, and 
that there is an obscurity in the passage itself, which renders it difficult to determine the disputed point, 



78 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 

the charge made by *Ward, of their translation being " false and heretical," goes for nothing. With 
the intent of supporting this charge of heresy and falsehood against the Protestant Translators, he 
shifts his ground to the Old Testament, where, he says, " perhaps they will pretend that they follow 
the Hebrew word, which is o<pn : and, therefore, they translate statutes and ordinances ; (righteous, 
too, if they please) but even there, also, are not the seventy Greek interpreters sufficient to teach them 
the signification of the Hebrew word, who always interpret it, La^pro; in English, justifications." 
It is very singular, that there is not an article throughout Ward's book, in which assertions are not 
made, supported with all the positiveness of truth, which, on examination, are found to spring 
from one or other of these two sources ; ignorance, or, what is worse, an intention to deceive. 

That this is the case in the present instance, shall be made to appear from a few references. First, 
then, in the book of -| Exodus, the Hebrew word chukim occurs, and is rendered by the lxx •n^axa.y^a., 
and by Jerome ceremonias. Again, in the book of tDeuteronomy, it is to be met with, and obtains the 
same Greek and Latin translation ; in §Jeremiah, it is rendered vo^t and legem ; in the book of 
||N umbers, mpn obtains as a translation in the Septuagint, and ceremonias in the Vulgate; in the 
^IFirst book of Kings, it is translated moxxs, it^may^a., ceremonias. It is to be observed, that even 
the word justijicatio, about which Ward speaks so much, is the vulgar Latin for my*^; while cere- 
monias is that adopted for oWu^ara. If necessary, several other instances might be adverted to, 
where the lxx render the same Hebrew word, not only justifications, but commandments, precepts, sta- 
tutes, ordinances, &c. and where Jerome renders it, ceremonias, pracepta, legem. 

87. A.I,ZCllOl. Ward says, according to St. Luke's words, " they (Zacharias and Elizabeth) were 
both just, because they " walked in all the justifications of the Lord blameless."' It is very true, that 
Christian walking justifieth before men, but justifieth no man in the sight of God, who sees further 
into his heart than others can, or than he does himself. If Zacharias was justified, why should he 
offer sacrifices in the temple, not only for the sins of the people, but even for his own ? **David himself 
entreats God not to enter into judgment with his servant, as in his sight, 1 no man living could be jus- 
tified.'' This is directly opposite to the Popish interpretation, and points out with what little reason the 
justification of man is inferred from the observance of the commandments. Nothing can be more ob- 
vious than the fallaciousness, and pernicious tendency of this doctrine. 

Ward, in continuation, observes, " these places (viz. the texts attached to numbers SQ. QO. 91. 
in the next page) do very fairly discover their false and corrupt intentions, in concealing the word 
justice, in their Bibles;"' as it would tend to prove " that men are justly crowned in Heaven for 
their good works upon earth." Here are the English Translators charged with corrupt intentions, 
although no doctrine can be inferred from just, and justice, which may not, with equal advantage, 
be derived from righteous and righteousness. For, if God as a ' just ' Judge, reward the good works 
of those whom he freely justifies by his grace, through the merits of Christ, and not through the 
merits of works ; it neither proves justification by works, nor the merit or worthiness of them. 
Therefore, the crown of righteousness (or, as the Popish expositors interpret it, of justice,) is 
conferred on Christians, because it has been promised them for Christ's sake, and not because it 
can be purchased by any works of theirs. 

* Errata, page 71, f C. xv'ui. v. 20. + Cxi. v. 32. § C. xxxi. v. 36, || C. ix. v. 3. 

% C. ii. v. 3. and c. viii. v. 58. ** Psalm cxliii. v. ii, 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN igii. 



79 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version . 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBibleiGn 


Apoc. xix. 8. 


to ya.(> ftvirtTivov 
T« ctwai 03f/.anra. 
an run ccyMv. 


Byssinum 
enim justifi- 
cationes sunt 
sanctorum. 


for the silk (in 
some editions, 
Jine linen) are 
the justifica- 
tions of saints. 


byssus enim 
justificationes 
sunt sancto- 
rum. 


for the fine 
linen is the 
'righteousness 
he. 


for the fine linen, 
is the ' righteous- 
ness of saints. 

(88) 


2 Tim. iv. 8. 


Aewov, a/Kov.a- 

T«t pot TD5 3i 

KXiocrvsni; rttpa- 

cret fAOi o Kffio; 

^a, o Stxxwt; v.gi- 
T1J. 


In reliquo, 
reposita est 
mihi corona 

justitiae, 
quam reddet 
mihi Domi- 
nus inilladie, 
justus judex. 


Concerning the 
rest, there is 
laid up for me 
a crown of j us- 
tice, which our 
Lord will ren- 
der unto me in 
that day, a just 
judge. 


quod reliquum 
est, reposita est 
mihi justitias 
corona quam 
reddet mihi 
Dominus in ilia 
die, justus ille 
j udex. 


a crown of 
'righteousness' 
&c. 

the c righteous ' 
judge. 


Henceforth there 
is laid up for me 
a crown of ' righ- 
teousness,' which 

the Lord the 
'righteous' judge. 
&c. 

(89) 


2 Thess. i. 5. 

6. 


Ta @£S, &c. 
7ra^a ©s«, &C. 


In exemplum 
justi judicii 
Dei, &c. 

Si tamen j us- 
tum est apud 
Deum, &c. 


For an example 
of the just 
judgment of 

God, &c. 
That yet it be 
just with God, 

aC. 


Quce res mani- 
festo est indicio 
justi judicii Dei, 
&c. 

Si quidem jus- 
tum est apud 

■L/cUIIl, <XC. 


' righteous ' 
judgment, &c. 
' righteous ' 
thing, &c. 


Which is a mani- 
fest, token of the 
' righteous ' judg- 
ment of God, that 
ye may be coun ted 
worthy of the 
tvjngciorn oi vrocij 
for which ye also 
suffer ; seeing it 
is a ' righteous ' 
thing with God. 

(90) 


Heb. vi. 10. 


6a l T8 £gy8 


Non enim 
injustus 
Deus lit ob- 

liviscatur 
operis vestri. 


For God is not 
unjust that he 
should forget 
your work. 


Non enim in- 
justus est Deus, 
ut obliviscatur 
operis vestri. 


For God is not 
' unrighteous, ' 
&c. 


For God is not 
unrighteous, to 
forget your work, 

(.91) 

i 



8S. BvCClPOV. A more rational exposition cannot be, than that given by *Grotius, viz.' f digni'snnt 

* Vid. Pol. Synops. in he. 



80 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 

qui sic vestiantur ; actiones enim eorum vestitui respondent ; sunt enim et splendid® et puree." Ac- 
cording to it, the fine linen is emblematical of the purity of those who wear it, but does not, as the 
Rhemists insist, confer justification. Good works are indeed the justifications of saints, because they 
declare them to be just, not because they make them just. The *publicans justified God, yet they did 
not make God just ; and the lawyers call that a man's justification, which neither makes the man, nor 
his cause, just, but declares them to be so. 

Sg. QO. 91. Ward says, the English translators prefer righteousness to justification, " because they 
know full well, that this word, including the works of Saints, would, by its adoption, rise up against their 
justification by faith only." The charge preferred here, has been anticipated in the preceding numbers, 
and refuted by a simple statement of the doctrine of the Church of England on this head. -( He 
next proceeds to say, that "by their translating righteous, instead of just, they bring it, that Joseph 
was a righteous man, rather than just ; because, when a man is just, it sounds that he is so indeed, 
and not by imputation only." The following references to the Protestant Bible, will shew that its 
translators designed no fraud when they adopted the term ' righteousness," inasmuch as it conveys the 
same meaning as 'justice ;' and that they indiscriminately used the words justice, and righteousness. 
^"St. Luke, speaking of Simeon, says, " and the same was (Sixmos) just and devout." §St. Matthew 
observes, that " Joseph her husband, being (5»><.*.o;) a just man." Who has ever conceived a distinc- 
tion to exist between a righteous man, and a just one ? It would but weary the patience of the 
reader to say more on the subject. 

Ward concludes the article with a "note also, that where faith is joined with the word just, they 
omit not to translate it just, viz. the just shall live by faith, to signify that justification is by ||faith 
alone." Of the many he has advanced, he has not uttered a more barefaced falsehood than this, 
nor one that betrays a more radical ignorance of the subject which he attempts to discuss. As has 
been observed, no difference exists in the English language between 'just,' and 4 righteous ;' 'justifi- 
cation ' and ' righteousness ;' neither do the English Translators, as is insinuated, join just with faith, 
and righteous with works, exclusively. The fact is, they applied, as was just remarked, both words 
indifferently, as appears from the following texts, viz. ^Romans, " for therein is (aixmoovvk) the righ- 
teousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written (i hnems) the just shall live by faith." 
**Again, " even the righteousness of God, which is by faith of Christ." An inspection into his 
concordance will satisfy the reader, that there are numerous passages in which the Protestant trans- 
lators rendered ^x«*os, and ow.Mov\m, sometimes by the one, and sometimes by the other, word. 

* See Cartwright's Annot. on the Rhem. New T. f Errata, page 73. X C. ii. v. 25. § C. i. v. 19. 

j| The Lord Bishop of Lincoln has, in his last publication, demonstrated the perfect consistency of justification by 
faith alone, with the necessity of personal righteousness. The exposition of the learned Prelate, although in the first instance, 
directed against those who keep " works " out of sight, yet is equally applicable to those who ascribe to them too great 
an efficacy, as one of the prescribed conditions of salvation. Besides, it goes the full length not only of disproving Ward's 
assertions respecting this particular doctrine, but rendering the repetition of them by Dr. Milner, or any of his ' Episcopal Bre- 
thren,' at any future period, extremely improbable. 

" To the much agitated question, therefore," observes his lordship, " whether works be necessary to justification, we 
answer, that if by justification be meant the first entrance into a state of justification, works are not necessary ; if, by justifi- 
cation be meant the continuance in a state of justification, works are necessary. By this distinction, we support the fundamental 
principle of the gospel, justification ly faith in Christ ; and at the same time, secure the main purpose of our Saviour's incarna- 
tion and death." Refutation of Calvinism, c. ii I - p. 124. 

f C. i. v. 17, ** C. iii.v. 22. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN ien. 



SECTION XIV.— MERIT AND MERITORIOUS WORKS. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhcmish Version 


Beza'sLatinTexi 


Bps. Bible, 1568 


. K.James'sBibleiGu 


Rom. viii. 


triv fxi^scrccp 
Solav, &c. 


Existimo 

nonsuntcon- 
dignae pas- 
siones, &c. 
hujus tempo- 
ris, &c. 


For I think 

that thp na<!. 

sions of this 
time are not 
condigne to the 
glory to come, 
kc. 


Nam statue 

mm imp pwp nn- 

ria quae pra?- 
senti tempore 
perpetimur, 
futurae gloria 1 , 


are not ' wor- 
ths ' 


For I reckon that 
the sufferings of 
this present time 
are not ' worthy ' 
to be compared 

with the glory 
which shall be 

revealed in us. 

m 


Ueb. s. 29. 


Xloau Soitstre 

(7£Tai HfJLUlQlXC, 
TOf VK3V T8 ©£B 


Qnanto ma- 
gis putatisde- 

teriora me- 
reri supplicia, 

qui Filium 
Dei concul- 
caverit, &c. 


How much 
more think you 
doth he deserve 
worse punish- 
ments who hath 
trodden the 
Son of God 
under foot. 


Quanto puta- 
tis acerbiore 
supplicio dig- 
nus censebitur, 
qui Filium Dei 
conculcarit, 
&c. 

Mont. 
Quanto putatis 

deter iori disnus 
judicabitur sup- 
plicio, &c. 


How much 
' sorer shall he 
be punished,' 
&c. 


Of how much 
sorer punishment 
suppose ye shall 
he be thought 

' worthy,' who 
hath trodden un- 
der foot the Son 
of God, &c. 

(93) 


Col. i. 12. 


&c. 


Gratias 
agentes Deo 
Patri, qui 
dignos n'os 
fecit, &c. 


Giving thanks 
to God the 
Father, who 

hath made us 
worthy, &c. 


Gratias agentes 
Patri, qui ido- 
neos nos fecit, 
&c. 

Mont. 
Patri, till ido- 
neos facienti 
nos, &c. 


made us 'meet,' 
&c. 


Giving thanks 
unto the Father, 
which hath mad© 
us ' meet/ &c. 

(94) 



$1 



82 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



92. A^Ct. The Protestant Translation of this passage is, " worthy to be compared ;" that of 
the Rhemists, " condigne." This term, *Ward says, means " equal, correspondent, or comparable 
to," &c. From this very interpretation, which speaks the language of Protestants on the subject, 
an invincible argument, against human merit, may be deduced. For, if tribulation in this life, be 
not comparable to happiness in the one to come, (and it is evident the Apostle intended nothing more, 
neither to exalt, nor abase the merit of works by a comparison with the excellency of the glory ;) it fol- 
lows, that present tribulation does not deserve that future happiness ; and, inasmuch as desert implies 
performance adequate to the reward, if the tribulation be not equal, (and on Ward's own admission 
it is not) to that future happiness or glory, it cannot be said to deserve either. A man's country may 
exalt him, for one day's distinguished service in war, to the most exalted rank ; it may, then, with truth, 
be said, that that day's service effected for him this great reward, but it cannot be said that it adequately 
purchased or deserved it, for so every person, whose merit was equal to his, would deserve a similar 
reward. 

On the ttext in the Rhemish Testament, n for that our tribulation is momentary and light, 
worketh above measure exceedingly an eternal weight of glory in us ;" Ward remarks, " see you not 
here, that short tribulation in this life works, that is, causes, purchases, and deserves an eternal weight 
of glory in the next? And what is that but to be meritorious and worthy of the same." The fore- 
going observations equally apply here, since the reward of eternal life, spoken of by the Apostle, 
which is the gift of God, is infinitely greater than the affliction endured in the present one, and fol- 
lows not from the desert of the sufferer, but from the liberality of the giver. It, therefore, amounts to 
the same thing, whether ' worthy,' according to the Protestant, or ' condign,' i. e. equal, &c. accord- 
ing to the Rhemish version, be adopted. For if the heavenly glory be, beyond comparison, greater 
than the afflictions of this life, it necessarily follows, that the afflictions of this life deserve not, that 
is, are not any way equal to the heavenly glory. Thus it appears that the main difference does not 
consist in the English given for but in the way in which it is expounded ; as the Popish trans- 
lation cannot be said to speak for, nor the Protestant one, against works. It is obvious, that the 
former, so arrogantly preferred by Ward, is calculated to impart to weak, imperfect man, a confidence 
in his own deserts, at the same time that he is admonished, in the language of Scripture, that after his 
very best endeavours, he should look upon himself, only as an unprofitable servant. 

+Ward gives a mutilated quotation from §St. Cyprian, if for no other purpose, at least for that 
of uniting the reward spoken of, with the word c merits,' which the father takes in a general sense 
to signify works. The words included in the brackets, are those suppressed by Ward : " O what, 
and how great a day shall come, my dearest brethren, when the Lord shall begin to recount [his peo- 
ple, and by examination of the divine knowledge, consider] the merits of every one ; [to send into 
hell fire the guilty, and to condemn our persecutors with perpetual burning of penal flame] and pay. 

* Errata, page 75. f 2 Cor. c. iv. v. 17. % Errata, page 75. 

§ " O dies ille qualis et quantus adveniet, fratres dilectissimi, cum caeperit [populum suum Dominus] recensere, [et divinae 
co^nitipnis examine] singulorum meritum [recognoscere ; mittere in gehennam nocentes, et persecutores nostros, flammae psena» 
lis perpetuo ardore damnare,] nobis vero mercedem fidei et devotionis exsolvere." St. Cyp. Epis, Ivi. y. 3, 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



83 



us the reward of faith and devotion." Here, observes Ward, are merits and the reward of the same. 
So much, indeed, on reading it over, may be collected from the passage, by omitting those parts of 
it, which lie within the brackets. Bat even if Cyprian meant deserts, he speaks only of the retri- 
bution rendered in proportion to them; but not at all of " an eternal weight of glory," as their reward. 
Although it happens that his meaning is not materially affected by the suppression, yet the prac- 
tice, so common with Popish controvertists, of withholding some part or other of what they affect to 
quote, as it argues the extreme of unfair dealing, cannot be too severely condemned. 

St. Augustine, too,' is cited by Ward as a favourer of his doctrine; but, as the *writings he 
adverts to are deemed spurious, it is unnecessary to notice them. However, in what is considered a 
genuine production of that father, — the commentary on the Lxxth Psalm, — his sentiments on the 
doctrine of human merit are clearly stated. His words are, t" thou art nothing by thyself ; call upon 
God ; thine are the sins, the merits are God's; to thee punishment is due, and when the reward shall 
come, he will crown his gifts, not thy merits." Here, this father absolutely denies, that the reward, 
which is of grace, is due on the score of merit or meritorious works. 

93. " If," says Ward, " they translate according to the Greek, as they pretend to, they should 
say in Luke, c. xx. v. 35. and xxi. 36, may be worthy, and they that aue worthy; and not 
according to the Vulgate Latin, which, I see, they are willing to follow, when they think it may make 
the more for their turn." Can any thing be more creditable to the intentions of the Protestant 
Translators, than this very circumstance which he censures ; or exhibit his inconsistency, and absur- 
dity, in a more striking point of view ? They consulted the Vulgate, (which in the present instance 
the Rhemists departed from ;) and if the original warranted that version, they unhesitatingly followed 
it. This was the principle on which they went ; to make every version to which they could get access, 
auxiliary to their design. They cannot, therefore, with justice, be charged with having followed this or 
that translation, in preference to the other; while the Rhemists, in overlooking the Latin, and in 
translating from the Greek text, justly expose themselves to the charge of having done so, to use 
Ward's own expression, because it may have made more for their turn. The Greek fxwrafiaflwE implies, 
" that you may be counted (judged or reputed) worthy," and not "that you may be worthy." The 
latter is the Rhemish Translation, according to which man is represented " to be worthy of," that is, 
" to deserve" heaven on account of his own merits. According to the former, the righteous are 
" counted worthy," and are so indeed, not through their own merit, but for Jesus Christ's sake. 
From these different expositions, the reader is enabled to judge, which is most agreeable, not only to 
right reason, but to the word and meaning of Scripture. 

94. Tw l/CCLVOWCLVTl* If the Popish expositors have not been able to deduce the doctrine of 

* Serm. de Sanctis. 

f " Nihil es perte, Deum invoca ; tua peccata sunt, merita Dei sunt, supplicium tibi debetur, et cum praemiirm venerir, 
jua dona coronabit, uon merita tua." Comment i. Psal. lxx. 

J k*t«|iow to think worthy. ParkH. 
M 2 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



human merit from which properly signifies ' worthy ;' they will find it much more difficult to 
extract it from iW«> ? , which implies * apt,' ' meet,' and sometimes ' sufficient.' 

" They cannot but know/' says *Ward, " that if Wo ; be 'worthy,' then '^aarcn must needs be 
' to make worthy.' " According to this rule, may be rendered e to magnify,' or ' to make great * 
because \*fo>is sometimes signifies ' great' or ' much.' Another invariable practice of the translators, 
was this : when a verb was derived from a noun of different significations, they took it in that which 
was most usual. But even were i'w«w«f translated after the Vulgate, viz. " to make worthy,'' that 
would not determine the point ; for it is God who makes us worthy by his grace, and not by 
desert of our own works; as no man could be saved who trusted to his own worthiness, inasmuch as 
all deserve death. The 1parab!e of the labourers most strongly exemplifies this ; since, if reward 
necessarily sprang from merit, they who came first in the morning into the vineyard, should, a6 their 
labour was greater, have received more than those who came at the last hour ; so that it is by no means 
clear, ah hough reward be conferred on works ; that works deserve it. In this light, X Ambrose 
viewed the matter, when he said, ' c whence should I have so great merit, who have mercy for my 
crown." §Chrysostom likewise observes " no man pursues such a course of life, as to be worthy of 
the kingdom ; but this gift is altogether from God ; therefore, he says, when ye have done all things, 
say, we are unprofitable servants.' 1 Theodoret speaks to the same effect; so, in fact, do all the ancient 
Fathers. The novel doctrine of merit and meritorious works was not thought of before the eleventh, 
nor can it be said to have received powerful support until the fourteenth century, when Thomas 
Aquinas became its able and successful advocate. In the sixteenth century, the Council of Trent 
sanctioned it, and at the same time anathematized all those who denied, that a man justified by good 
works is deservedly entitled to eternal life. Hence flowed what the Popish Church calls " Counsels of 
perfection ;"' i. e. rules which guide men to a higher degree of perfection than is necessary to salvation ; 
while these, in their turn, produced the doctiine which relates to yworks of supererogation. When 
to all this are added the refinements of the schoolmen, and their invention of two sorts of merit, the 
Hmerit of condignity, and the merit of congruity; it cannot but excite astonishment, how a 
church, calling itself christian, can so long continue to countenance so gross a perversion of scripture 
doctrine. It must be observed, however, that in every age since its first propagation, Popish divines, 
of the greatest celebrity, have given it their decided opposition. 

* Errata, page J5. f C. xx. v. 1. 

* " Uncle mihi tantum meriti, cui indulgentia est pro corona." Ambros. ad virg. in exhor. 

§ »^£i; ya.^ 7otxv7r,v ettioWkutjsi •nc/Kiinav 0171 /SayiAsia; a|i(<jS»)ii«i, cM\/x. T»i; AYTOY ^a^iaq £r< to ma.\>. ha, tsto 'otuv iravrct 

r i70iT l Q7i'ti j 7\tysTB on ay^tot JaAoi eotaec Hom. ii. in Ep. ad Col. 

II According to this most presumptuous and unscriptural tenet, when a person has performed more than is necessary to 
ensure his salvation, he can apply the surplusage of his deserts to the wants of others ! ! ! 

5f Merit ex condigno implies a good work, to which a divine reward is due on a principle of justice ; as well on account of 
the value or merit of the work, as of the person who performed it. Merit ex congruo, signifies a good work, which deserves a 
■ i ine reward, not through any obligation on the score of justice, but on a principle of fitness. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 85 



Book. Ch. Ver. 



Psalm cxix. 
1 12. 



Heb. ii. 9. 



Ovig. Greek 



o~a,i to. 

(Tpn) 
era £i? rot attiipa. 



Vulgate Text. 



Inclinavi cor 
me am ad fa- 
ciendas j.usti- 

ficationes 
tuas in aster- 
num propter 
retributionem. 

Pagn t . ad 
faciendum 
st a tut a tua, 
in seculum, 

usque in 
Jinem. 



Rhemish Version. 'Beza'sLatinText 



I have inclinediMoNT. renders 



my heart to do 
thy justifica- 
tions for ever 



Top & €^a^v ti 
ma.;? a.yyt\x$ 
j) "ha. t\u(a £ 1 v (3 Xs - 

7I0jjt.il/ llKTUy, Si 

to wa6»if/a t 
^cttct-tu, So^n y.c 

fj.isaii' &C. 



Eum a utem, 
qui modico 

qnam 
angel i mino- 
ratus est, vi- 
demus Jesum 
propter pas 
sionem mor- 
tis, gloria et 
honore coro- 
natum, &c. 



But him that 
was a little les- 
sened under the 
angels, we see 
Jesus, because 
of the passion 

of death, 
crowned with 
glory and ho- 
nour, &c. 
N. B. In some 
late editions of 
the R. T. the 
foregoing text 
has been ar- 
ranged in the 
order of that in 
the Prot. N. T. 



?v c a Icon. 



Sed Jesum il- 

um videmus 
gloria et honore 
corona turn, qui 

parumper fuit 
inferior angelis 
factus, propter 
mortis perpes- 

sionem, &c. 

Mont. Eum 
autem breve 
quidpra angelis 
minoratum, &c. 



Bps. Bible, 1568 



to fulfil thy 
' statutes ' al- 
ways, ' even un- 
to the end.' 



K.James'sBibleiGii 



We see Jesus 
crowned with 
glory and ho- 
nour, &c. 



I have inclined 
mine heart to per- 
form thy ' sta- 
tutes' alway, 
' even unto the 
end.' 

(95) 



But we see Jesus, 
who was made a 
little lower than 
the angels, for 
the suffering of 
death, crowned 
with glory and 
honour, &c. 



(96) 



95. *3pv tThe end. The farther a person advances into Ward's work, the more he will be con- 



* In Josh. c. viii. v. 13. spy is rendered in the Vulgate novissime, and in the Septuagint Greek icr^ra,; and in Prov. c. xxii, 
V. 4. Vulg. Jims. Lxx. ym». 

f Vid. Parkh, Heb. Lex, in loc. 



86 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



vinced, that he cavils for cavilling sake. Now granting the Popish translation to be the best, the 
merit of good works will not be a whit the sooner established ; as reward does not necessarily imply 
the desert of him who is rewarded, it more frequently implies the liberality of the rewarder. Isidorus 
Clarius, whose eminence as a scholar will not be questioned by the Popish Doctors, in commenting 
on this text, assigns his reasons why the Hebrew word spy should not be translated (propter retri- 
butionem) " for reward." He remarks, that there is no word in the Hebrew text, correspondent to 
the Latin phrase just quoted, and, consequently, that it should be omitted. *" That it is too 
servile a thing, and not becoming so great a prophet, to obey God's commandments for reward and 
hope of retribution, and lastly, that he does not deserve the title of a Christian, who serves Christ, 
with this mind, &c." tMuis may be added to the foregoing commentators, as justifying the Protes- 
tant version, and as shewing that no unwarrantable liberty has been taken with the sacred text. 
Notwithstanding this, Ward, on his own unsupported authority, pronounces the Protestant Trans- 
lation of the passage, " a most notorious corruption against merits.''' This is, however, but one of 
his many proofless assertions ; indeed, in the very next sentence, he himself admits the ambiguity of 
the Hebrew term, which the lxx have rendered a-na.^^. 

96. " In fine," says tWard, " so obstinately are they set against merits, and meritorious works, 
that some of them think, that even Christ himself did not merit his own glory and exaltation." 
Protestants, with justice, maintain, that Christ was under no necessity of meriting it, he himself 
being the Lord op Glory ; yet their entire comfort rests in his merits, as through them they hope 
for eternal glory. 

Ward concludes this article with a charge of " intolerable deceit'' against the Protestant Trans- 
lators ; who, he says, have arranged the words of this text in so ambiguous a way, that the reader may 
follow " which sense he will." Such is the general tenor of the language throughout the Errata, 
as the reader must have already perceived by the quotations made from it ; and yet, strange to say, 
it is held up, at the present day, as a work of unrivalled merit, by the Popish clergy, who, either from 
ignorance, are incompetent to decide, or, from unwillingness, will not explore the sacred source itself; 
and who, without resting on Ward's, or any other person's authority, will not satisfy themselves, whe- 
ther his objections be, or be not, controvertible, and warranted by Scripture. The ambiguity, of 
which this impugner of the Protestant faith complains, is merely apparent, as may be seen by con- 
necting the words, " for the suffering of death," with those which follow. The sense of the pas- 
sage is thus clearly expressed by §one of Pole's Annotators : " Videmus Jesum, coronatum propter 
passionem mortis, qua nimirum passione mortem gustavit, &c. Non quomodocunque, sed gratia dei, 
sive ex charitate." || Another of them as pertinently observes, " tantum abest ut crux fuerit igno- 
minia Christi, quod fuit ejus corona et gloria." 

* " Servile hoc videtur, et tanto Propbeta sane indignum, &c." Com. in Psal. cxviii. v. 112. 
f " Deo serviendum etiam absque mercede, et quia ipsum per se amabile est." Pol. Synops. in loc. 
i Errata, page 75. § Estiub. H Tena. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611 



87 



SECTION XV.— FREE WILL. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 



Orig. Greek 



Vulgate Text. 



Rhemish Version. 



Beza's Latin Text Bps. Bible, 1568. 



K.James'sBiblei6n 



John i. 12. 



Si 

avion, sauxcv 
8 {T<H £1? TO 

'•vopu aVTti. 



Cor. xv. 10. 



ri^OV UVTOJV "71U.V- 
fjJV SKO'TTtaux' 

ova. tyw oe, olKK' 
ht>v, i) crvt 



Quotquot 
autem rece- 
perunt eum. 
dedit eis po- 
testatem fi- 
ios Dei fieri, 
his qui cre- 
pitant in no- 
mine ejus. 



Sedabundan- 
tius illis om- 
nibus labo- 
ravi, non ego 
autem, sed 
gratia Dei 
mecum. 



Eph. iii. 12. 



yuyw iv wettoi 

6»iO-£i <i,x TH% 

TTlfEi); O.VC0V. 



In quo habe- 
mus fiduciam 
et access urn 
in confiden- 
tial per fidem 
ejus. 



2 Cor. vi. 1 



XvK$yovm; h Adjuvantes 
autem exhor- 
tamus, ne in 
vacuum gra- 
tiam Dei re- 
cipiatis. 



Xoviz.it fAT) £i; XE- 
uot rr)u ya^ivrov 



But as many as 
received him, 
he gave them 
power to be 
made the sons 
of God, 



But I have la- 
boured more 

abundantly 
than all they ; 
yet not I, but 
the grace of 
God with me. 



Quotquot au- 
tem eum exce- 

perunt, dedit 
eis hoc jus ut 

filii Dei facti 
sint, nempe iis 
qui credunt in 
nomen ejus. 



Sed amplius 
quam illi om- 
nes laboravi : 
son ego tamen, 
ed gratia Dei 
quaa in me col 
lata est. 
Mont, qua 
cum me. 



prerogative, 
&c. 



the grace of 
God ' which is' 
with me. 



But as many as 
received him, to 
them gave he 
power ' to be- 
come the sons of 
God,even to them 
that believe on 
his name. 

(97) 



But I la- 
boured more 
abundantly than 
they all: yet not 
I, but the grace 
of God c which 
was ' with me. 



In whom we 
have affiance 
and access in 
confidence by 
the faith of 

him. 
N. B. Accord- 
ing to others, 
' boldness,' &c. 



And we helping 
do exhort that 
you receive not 
the grace of 
God in vain. 



In quo habe 
mus libertatem 
et aditum cum 
fiducia, per fi- 
dem ipsius. 



*and c entrance' 
by the confi- 
dence ' which 
is' by the faith 
of him. 



Sed et, ut ope- 
ram nostram ei 
accommodantes 
hortamur ne 
frustra gratiam 
Dei vos recepe- 
ritis. 

Mont. 

cooperanies. 



!s ' We together 
as God's la- 
bourers, &c.' 



In whom we have 
boldness and ac- 
cess with confi- 
dence by the faith 
of him. 



(99) 



We then, as 
' workers toge- 
ther with him,' 
beseech you also 
that ye receive 
not the grace of 
God in vain. 



(100) 



Marked thus * were altered to their present reading A.J}. 1611. 



S8 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



97. ~E^S(TlCiP. As the English translations of this term are, and have been, the same, both 
in Protestant and Popish Bibles, for the last two centuries ; it becomes necessary to state the grounds 
on which Ward makes his charge. He sets up the Rhemish translation as the standard of truth, 
judges by this criterion the earliest versions of the Protestant Bibles in English, and passing over King 
James's Bible, the last authorised one, and which was in existence full seventy years before the publica- 
tion of his work; visits on it the deviations of those early versions from this standard. There can- 
not surely be a stronger instance of unfairness or want of candour. But ' prerogative,' or « privi- 
lege,' with which Ward finds fault, are not mistranslations of sfwi*; neither do they overturn, nor 
does ' power,' the present reading, confirm the doctrine for which he contends. In the *n*rst Epistle 
to the Corinthians, £ |««* is rendered 6 liberty,' as well in the Rhemish, as in the Protestant New 
Testament, for which Ward offers an apology, when he says, " now ive may as well translate ' liberty,' 
as Beza does dignity." This, however, on so serious an occasion, is but mere trifling. 

98. Y] (TVV S[JL0l. In addition to falsifying the word of God, Ward alleges, that the Protestant 
Translators acted here with insincerity. The reader will presently perceive, how unsupported by fact 
this assertion is, and that the Popish translation of the passage, no more establishes the doctrine 
of free will, than the other controverts it. He says, the sense to which Protestants confine the text, 
is, j" only grace, as if the Apostle had done nothing, like unto a block or forced only." It is but 
fair to understand the words c only grace,' as it may be presumed Ward did, to signify grace alone, or 
unassisted grace. But, surely, according to this interpretation, Protestants are shamefully misrepre- 
sented. Their translation of the passage, " I laboured more abundantly than they all/' points out 
his (St. Paul's) superior success in spreading the gospel, and shews with what little regard to truth, 
Ward says, they consider the " Apostle as a mere block." Besides, the form of expression, viz. " the 
grace of God which laboured with me," cannot be considered unobjectionable, as in it is included an 
useless tautology ; so that by corrrecting, as it were, what he had said relative to his labouring, by the 
use of the exceptive sentence, "yet not I," and by thus modestly ascribing all he did to the grace of 
God ; he proves himself to be rather a willing and painful labourer, than as one acted on by violence, 
as if he were an automaton, or a mere machine. He laboured as a man endued with life, sense, and 
reason; and yet he did not labour by his own strength, or virtue, but by the 'grace of God.' Such is the 
rational exposition given to the passage by the most eminent Protestant Divines: — men, whose prin- 
ciples and opinions, respecting the doctrine of free will, are not more abhorrent from the Calvinis- 
tic error of the irresistibility of divine grace ; than they are from the Popish one, according to which, 
the free agency of man is too highly extolled, and the powers of the human mind are overrated. 
The latter is not, properly speaking, of Popish growth, as it may be traced to ^Pelagius; so also the 
former derives not its origin from Calvin, as it was taught by §Goteschalc in the ninth century, 
and claims for its first propagator, no less a character than ||Saint Austin himself. The Church 

* C. viii. v. 9. See Whitby's and Macknight's Commentaries on this text. 

f Errata, p. 7/. % Mosh. Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 86. § Ibid. vol. ii. p. 315. 

[| Ibid. vol. ii. p. S8. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. sy 

of England ulrinque reducla holds, as it does in most other particulars, a happy mean between 
these opposite extremes. 

<c But they reprehend," says *Ward, " the Vulgate Latin interpreter for neglecting the article » 
and, although in the following phrases, " Jacobus Zebejdai, Judas Jacobi, Maria Cleophce, the Greek 
article cannot be expressed, yet they are all sincerely translated into Latin." Protestants censure 
Jerome's text for the omission of the article, where it should be inserted; but never where it may be 
either impossible, or unnecessary,, to express it. They themselves closely adhered to this rule, and 
never added an iota to the text, but what was necessarily understood. It is idle to say, that it was 
for the sake of precision, that the Rhemists translated Judas Zebedai, "Judas of Zebedee;'' omitting 
the word ' Son or, if that were the cause, how does it happen that in the f Acts, thev rendered 
curaverunt Stephanum, " they took order for Stephen's funeral ;" and ;j;again, ecce ego Domine, " lo! 
here I am Lord?" Numberless other instances of this kind might be pointed out, where the Rhemish 
Translators without necessity added to the text. It is manifest, therefore, that the translation of the 
article in the phrase * <w* ^ does not come under the limitations, adverted to by Ward. 

But the additions made by the Rhemists, are not more remarkable, than their suppressions of 
the sacred text. In the Epistle to the Romans, a singular contrivance of this kind occurs, solely for 
the purpose of making Scripture speak in behalf of ' works,' to the prejudice of ' grace.' Through- 
out their entire labours, their dishonesty is no where more palpable, as the omission complained of 
is not that of a letter or a syllable, but of an entire sentence, consisting of no fewer than fifteen words, 
in the §original. In the Protestant version, (the only English one of it extant) it runs thus : " But if it 
be of works, then it is no more grace ; otherwise work is no more work." Montanus acknow- 
ledges, that this passage belongs to the Greek text, and thus renders it : " Si autem ex operibus, 
non amplius est gratia : alioqui opus, non amplius est opus.'' ||Griesbach who cannot be accused of 
favouringorthodoxy, admits that it belongs to the original. He quotes the several MSS. which he collated, 
as possessing it. R. Stephanus, Wetstein and Mills, having incorporated it in the text of their respec- 
tive Greek Testaments, clearly proves that they considered it to contain the very words of St. Paul. 

99. 100. XwepyVVTSg. Although Ward allows that the texts belonging to these two 
numbers, have been corrected in the later editions of the Protestant Bible, he yet revives all the 
ribaldry and abuse, which Gregory Martin heaped on those which were published in his day. With 
less scurrility, but certainly with no less acrimony, Doctor Milner not only lavishes his censures on the 
Protestant Bible, but vindicates all the 8 erudite criticism,' as he calls it, contained in \ Wards 
Polyglott.' To this gentleman, then, who is avowedly the Spokesman of his ' Episcopal Brethren' 
in Ireland, it becomes necessary to direct a few observations. Is he aware of the ill-consequences 
of charging with mistranslation and error, a work which has been the joint production of the most 
eminent scholars ? And, as lie avows himself to be unacquained with the Hebrew language, and as 
his knowledge of Greek appears from those instances in which he has exercised it in making quota- 

* Errata, page 77. f C. viii. v. ii. X C. ix. v. 10. 

§ Ei h e| epyuy, sy. eti et' X tt P l $' £5r£t T0 >iK ETJ ES " 111 •PY 01 - Rom. C. xi, v. 6. 
\\ Vid. Nov. Test. Graec. vol. ii. p. 200. 

N 



90 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



tions, to be extremely imperfect, is he not most unfit to pass any opinion, but particularly an unqua- 
lified one, on a subject which requires a radical knowledge of those languages ? He is therefore called 
on in the name of candour, to retract his charge, and to reconsider the grounds on which he made it. 
He is enjoined in the name of common sense to make a careful enquiry, whether the English Bible 
of his own Church be as perfectly translated as it might ; even in many places in which doctrinal 
points are not concerned. In order to make this appeal efficacious, the few following passages 
selected from many others which may be met with in the Rhemish Testament, are at least entitled 
to his revision. They are quoted, not for the purpose of recrimination, which could serve no good 
end, but as affording proofs of the caution and delicacy which should be observed, where Scripture 
is at all concerned. 



Greek Text. 

No. 1. 1 Cor. C. xiv. V. 3 1 . Trams ita^xy.rx}.u\ta-i. 

2. Id. V.35. st u.c&uv S^«<7i, 

3. Acts, c. xxv. v. 4. 

4. Heb. c. vii. v. 28. 

5. Acts, c. x. v. 41. 



V7TQ 10V ®S0V. 



} 



Vulgate Text. 
omnes exhortentur 
Si volant discere 
Servari in Caesarea 
homines 

testibus praeordioatis a Deo. 



Rhemish Version. 
all may be exhor ed 
if they learn 
is in Caesarea 
them 

(entirely omitted ) 



Doctor Milner will scarcely venture to affirm that the Rhemists did justice to the four first texts ; 
the fifth is added for the purpose of shewing, that however consistent they were in omitting the 
passage in Romans, c. xi. v. 5. alluded to in the preceding number, as not being recognised by the 
author of the Vulgate ; they have not the shadow of a pretext for not noticing the words " testibus prae- 
ordinatis a Deo." Their advocates but make the matter worse, when they say, these errors have been 
partly rectified in the Edinburgh, and other late editions of the Rhemish Testament, as they thereby 
put infallibility still more at variance with itself. It cannot have escaped the readers observation, that in 
the fourth text, in which them is substituted for men, the contrast, between the priesthood of men, 
and that of the Son of God, (designed by the use of the word ' men,') is entirely done away. 

On the text, c. iii. v. 12, of St. Paul to the Ephesians, attached to number 99, Ward observes, 
that the Protestant Translators say, " confidence is by faith," as though there were " no confidence 
by works." From what the Apostle says in that text, confidence by works can neither be understood 
nor proved. It may be seen, on inspecting the parallel readings, how inconsiderable the variance is, 
between the early and late English versions. And although the same observation is applicable to those 
of cwf^yams, in number 100, yet Ward remarks, *" how falsely their first English Translators made 
it, let themselves, who have corrected it in their last Bibles, judge." The j present reading is, no 
doubt, clearer, and better connected, than the preceding ones ; yet, however imperfect these may be, 
they are far from being 'false' representations of the original, and must, to the eye of candid cri- 
ticism, appear preferable to J" co-adjutors, or co labourers " of God, which, according to Ward, 
is what " the Apostle calls himself and his fellow-preachers." Nor is this decision only to be had from 
the Greek text ; it is further confirmed by the Latin interpretations of the Syriac version, and of the 
Arabic paraphrase. 

* Errata p. 77. 

f In 1 Cor. iii. ix. the rendering differs but in a trifling degree from that objected to by Ward ; yet he does not notice it. 
I Beza, in his comments on this interpretation of the Rhemists, properly observes, " dicimur enim turn adjuvare, cut 
vires non sufficiunt ; quis autem hoc de Deo dicat ?" 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



91 



Book. Ch. Ver. 



Rom. v. 6. 



John v. iii. 



xcu at mo\a.\ 

O.UT8 (3a^£lflSt 8K 
U9\. 



Mat. xix. 11 



Orig. Greek 



O'jtuv rifjM 0C7- 

§Stlllf, Y.OiTOC 

« P 



Vulgate Text. 



Rhemish Version 



Ow warn? x a 
qoihti Toy hoyov 
rovrov, aX\ 
o(; h<toroti. 



Utquidenim 
Christus, 

cum adhuc 
infirmi esse- 
mus, secun- 
dum tern pus 

pro- impiis 
mortuus est r 



ut mandata 
ejuscustodia 

mus: et 
mandata ejus 
gravia non 
sunt. 



Non omnes 
capiunt ver- 
bum istud, 
sed quibus 
datum est. 



For why did 
Christ, when 
we as yet were 
vveak, accord- 
ing to the time, 
die for the 
impious ? 
Others read 
ungodly. 



that we keep 
his command 
ments : and Jnis 

command- 
ments are not 



heavy. 



Not all take 
this word, but 

they to 
whom it is 
given. 

N. B. Some 
late editions of 
the R. T. agree 
with the read 
ing quoted by 

Ward ; viz. 
" All men do 
not receive this 

saying, &C.'' 



Beza's Latin Text 



Christus enim 
quum adhuc 
nullis viribus 
essemus, pras 
stituto tempore 
pro impiis mor- 
tuus est. 
Mont. 
existentibus 
lobis injirmis. 

ut mandata 
ejus servemus; 

et mandata, 
ejus gravia non 
sunt. 



are not ( griev- 
ous.' 



non omn^ssurit 
ca paces hujus 
sermonis, sed 
ii quibus datum 
est. 



Bps. Bible, 1568. 



when we were 
yet of ' no 

strength, died ' 
for the un 
godly.' 



' cannot re- 
ceive.' 



K.James'sBible 1611 



For when we 
were yet ' with- 
out strength,' in 
due time Christ 
died for the un- 
godly. 

(101) 



that we keep his 
commandments : 
and his com- 
mandments are 
not ' grievous/ 
(102) 



All men 1 cannot 
receive ' this say- 
ing, save they to 
whom it is given. 



(103) 



101. A<T@£V0dV* *Ward says, " they corrupt this text/' by rendering it ivere without strength \ 
44 to defend their false doctrine, that free will was altogether lost by Adam's sin." The word in its 
primary acceptation implies, according to the Protestant Translators, ' privation of strength,' and 
sometimes ' of all strength ;' by these means, they very properly represented the fall of man by sin ; 
and although ' weak,' be admitted as fit English, the former interpretation is to be preferred. But, 
were the preference given to the Rhemish Translation, yet the doctrine of free-will could not be thence 
deduced. In the tfirst Epistle to the Corinthians, in the jEpistle to the Galatians, and in §that to 
the Hebrews, the word «s-&ewj?, signifies that which is so weak as to possess no strength. According 
to the first text, the dead body is ' sown in weakness;' in which it cannot be said that any ||strength 
exists. In the second, the disused ceremonies of the Mosaic law are termed " weak (aaStm) and 

* Errata, page 77. f C. xv. v. 4S. $ C. iv. v. 9. § C. vii. v. 18. 

|| " Spiritualibus donis et viribus penitus destituti sumus, sicut cadaver dicitur ao-Serer." A$not. Bez. in loc, 

N 2 



92 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



beggarly elements ;" as being destitute of strength for the justification of a sinner; and in the last, 
the commandment of the Levitical Priesthood is abolished, (hm m »adms) on account of its " weakness 
and unprofitableness," without Christ. The reader will perceive from a comparison of the text in 
question, with the parallel passages, that free-will, generally speaking, is not denied to men ; it is only 
the impious who may be said to have no strength, and therefore to possess no freedom of will unto 
good, inasmuch as, they are dead in sin. 

102. B#py£. Although this word signifies { heavy,' yet ' grievous,' ' afflictive,' &c. is the 
more suitable construction. Ward says, " to this purpose they translate, his commandments are not 
grievous, rather than are not heavy ; for in saying they are not heavy, it would follow they might be 
kept and observed." Such is the conclusion of a charge, according to which Protestants " have 
bereaved, and spoiled man of his free-will." Nothing, surely, can be more distant from the truth than 
this : for, first from their translation of the text belonging to this number, and the f others con- 
nected with it, it cannot be inferred that free-w\ll is denied to man. Next, in several parts of her 
liturgy, this doctrine is fully set forth by the Church of England. And lastly, in +one of her 
public formularies, and by her earliest ^Divines, the same doctrine is clearly and explicitly declared, and 
the due value set on human exertions, without countenancing that spiritual pride, which the Popish, 
or that despondency which the Calvinistic interpretation is calculated to produce. So that if in some 
cases, a little indulgence be conceded to^Ward on the score of prejudice, he is here inexcuseable, as he 
makes accusations, which, the documents adverted to, prove to be no less false than impudent. 

||St. Luke says, the yoke of the law is such a ' burthen,' as neither " we, nor our fathers," 
were able to bear ; so the commandments are not grievous to him who is " born of God," and who 
overcomes the world by faith ; that is, the observance of them, although c heavy ' and burthensome 
to a good man, is not ' grievous,' being that in which his soul delights. In the ^[second Epistle to 
the Corinthians, where both the Greek and Latin are the same, (viz. B«g £ »«(, graves) as in the text 
under consideration, the Rhemists rendered it sore ; thus " his Epistles are so?-e," or weighty. In 
effect, however, the difference is very inconsiderable between it and the Protestant translation. 

103. Q v zciPTSg ^Wp8(H. To judge whether f cannot,' or ' do not,' best convey the 
sense of the passage, see the observations made in number 42, where Doctor Milner's opinion, not 
less than Ward's, viz. "that these words imply the possibility of all men leading a continent life;" 
is shewn to be utterly unfounded. That continency proceeds from man's free-will, is no where stated 
in Scripture, while it is here, and in other texts, mentioned to be the gift of God. It would surely 
be needless, even for the best men, to ask it as a divine favour, if they could impart it to themselves, 
or to seek that from without, which they possessed from within. Besides, that which all men may 
obtain by ordinary means, cannot be called a special gift ; that is, a gift proper to some, which, the 
words " to whom it is given," imply. 

* Gravis, odiosus. Scap. grievous, oppressive. Parkh. 
t See last column for the translation of tu&twv, and yo^vji. Numbers 101, 103. 
X " Absque gratia Dei nos praeveniente, ut velimus, et cooperante, dam volumus, &c." Article x. 
§ " Neither so preach the grace of God, as thereby to takeaway free-will ; nor, on the other side, so extol free-will, that 
injury be done to the grace of God." Cranmer's Necessary Erudition* 

|| Acts, c. xv. v. 10. ^ C. x. v. 10. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



93 



SECTION XVI.— INHERENT JUSTICE. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 



Orig. Greek. 



Vulgate Text. 



Rhemish Version 



Beza's Latin Text 



Bps. Bible, 1568 



K.James'sBibleiGn 



v. 18. 



3. 



2 Cor. v. 21 



fwj 'Traga.'rtlM- 

ftOSTO; El$ 7IO.ll- 
£(£ HCCTCCX.I>if^OC' 

urco xeu fri 'woe 

XCCM/XXTQS £1? 

Trctnoit; cwQ^u- 
ttovi;, nq^iKxia 

<TiV 



Igitur sicut 
per unius de 



Therefore, as 
by the offence 



Qiu, xai eXo- 

\r.0i\0<7VVYlV . 



\iri 0eS £>i ctvro) 



lictum inom- of one, unto 
nes homines all men to con- 
in condem- |dem nation : so 
nationem: sic also, by thejus- 



Nempe igitur 
sicut 'perunam 
offensam 



et per unius 
justitiam in 
omnes homi 
nes in justi 
ficationem 
vitse. 



tice of one, 
unto all men to 
justification of 
life 



Credidit 
Abraham 
Deo, et repu- 
tatum est ill 
ad justitiam. 



ut nos effice 
remur justi- 
tia Dei in 
ipso. 



Abraham be- 
lieved God, and 
it was reputed 
him to justice. 



rea 

tusvenit in om 
nes homines ad 
condemna- 
tionem : ita 
' per unam jus 
tificationem' be 
nejicium redun- 
davit in omnes 
homines ad jus 
tificationem 
vitas. 

Mont. e per 
unam offinsam,' 
&c. 

'per unam jus- 
tijicationem.' 

Credidit autem 

Abrahamus 
Deo, et impu 
tatum est ei ad 
justitiam. 



Likewise then 
as by the of- 
fence of one 
' the fault came 

on' all men, 
&c. 

so the ' bene 
fit aboundeth ' 
to all men, 
&c. 



Therefore as by 
the offence of one 
"judgment came' 
upon all men to 
condemnation; 
even so by the 
righteousness of 
one the free gift 
came upon all 
men unto justifi- 
cation of life. 



It was reputed 
to him 'for jus- 
tice.' 



that we might 
be made the 
justice of God 
in him. 



ut nos efficere- 
mur justitia 
Dei in eo. 



£ righteous- 
nesss,' &c. 



(104) 

Abraham be- 
lieved God, and it 
was counted unto 
him for « right- 
eousness.' 



(105) 



That we might 
be made ' the 
righteousness' of 
God in him. 



(106) 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



104. *Ward, in noticing the construction given to this text hy the Protestant Translators, animad- 
verts on their unwillingness, " to suffer the Holy Scripture to speak in behalf of inherent justice." 
He repeats nearly the same charge in each of the five succeeding numhers. What ignorance and 
presumption ! The English -j version to which he objects, is more explicit, and at the same time, 
comes nearer to the original than the Popish one ; neither in this instance, does this uphold, or that 
deny justice. 

" Beza's false translation, you see," continues he, " our English Bibles follow, and have added no 
fewer than six words in this one verse." The reader will perceive that the verse is elliptical, and 
requires its sense to be completed from a preceding one, viz. the 15th, to which it must be referred 
for explanation. No word, therefore, has been added, which has not been conducive to this end. 
But, instances are not wanting of additions being made in the Rhemish New Testament, which are 
not authorised by the Vulgate, and even where the sense does not require it ; as « after some days,' 
for post dies; " in all his goods," for in omnibus bonis. Lastly, in the, Jflrst Epistle to the Corin- 
thians, they give eleven English for four Latin words : " I did away the things that belonged to a little 
one," for emcuavi qua era/it parvuli, &c. And yet it were well, that it could be found fault with 
only for supplying such or such words, in passages which absolutely required them, or where they did 
not in any degree affect the sense of Scripture. 

105. (E7\0yi(rSr\ CLVTW Si;. Ward alleges that the Protestant Translators added ' for ' 
to the text, that they might take " away true inherent justice, even in Abraham himself." Not only 
St. Paul, in the present instance, but ||St. James, in a parallel passage, uses the preposition ™, which 
signifies ' into,' or ' for.' This translation only declares that Abraham was not justified by works, i. e. 
by ' justice inherent ;' but by faith which embraced the mercy of God in the promised seed, in which 
he, and all the nations of the earth, should be blessed. Independently of this, there was nothing in 
Abraham which God accounted for justice. 

" But let them remember," says Ward, " that the Scripture uses to speak of sin and justice 
alike ; repulabitur tibi in peccatum, as St. Hierom translates it. If then justice only be reputed, 
sin also is only reputed, if sin be in us indeed, justice is in us indeed." Now although Jerome 
adopted the verb reputor in his version, the ^[original by no means warrants it ; for, according to it, 
the verb substantive would have been more appropriate. It is true, sin is inherent, and so would 
perfect ** justice, if men could observe all the commandments of God. It was not, therefore, this 
single instance of faith in Abraham recorded by Moses, but the ft habitual exercise of it, that " was 
counted unto him for righteousness ;" yet, it was so only by the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, that 
is, on account of what Christ did to obtain for him that favour. JtGomarus says, " Legaliter enim, 
non est justus, qui unum actum justitiae fecit, sed tantum qui manserit in omnibus.^ This is the 

* Errata, page 79. f Viz. Rom. c. v. v. IS. J C. xiii. v. 11. 

§ Atyi^ofAdt implies as well ' to state an account,' as ' to value.' Parkh. || C. ii. v. 23. 

^[ rrm Deut. c. xxiii. v. 21. Pagninus renders this Hebrew word, et erit j which translation Montanus approves. 
** See Deut. c. vi. v. 25. ft Gal. c. iii. v. 10. 

i\ Vid. PoJ. Synops. in loc. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611, 



95 



uniform doctrine of Scripture on this point, as is elaborately stated by Macknight in his commentary 
on the Epistles. 

But, concludes Ward, " the * Hebrew ppuf # naern should not be so translated, (viz. for, or instead 
of justice, as the English Bibles have it) especially when they meant it was so counted, or reputed 
for justice, that it was not justice indeed." It has been already remarked, that SS. Paul and James, 
interpret the passage with the preposition s>$ ; which circumstance should be a guide to all other exposi- 
tors, as to the sense they attach to it. Thus it appears that the Protestant Translators have in this 
instance also faithfully executed their trust ; while Ward, in setting down their translation as erro- 
neous, must have been radically ignorant of the subject on which he treated ; to say the least of it, 
he was rather led on under the influence of a blind and devoted zeal, than by the dictates of an 
honest judgment. It is proper to remark that he has misquoted the Douay translation of the fore- 
going text of Genesis ; a practice no way unusual with him r 

106. Al/tCUOWVYi. Righteousness and justification (which, in a preceding number, were 
observed to be convertible terms) of God, in St. Paul's style, always signifies the righteousness of 
faith in Christ, dying or shedding his. blood for men. fWard condemns this exposition as heretical ; 
his words are, " though their latter Bibles have undertaken to correct some texts, yet their heresy 
would not suffer them to amend also the word righteousness. It is death to them to hear of justice." 
There is not a text in Scripture more decidedly against justification by inherent justice, than this very 
one in question. For when faith is accounted for ' righteousness,' or ' justice,' it becomes, through 
the grace of God, and the merits of Christ's death, the means, because it is the appointed condition 
of justification ; and, consequently, the reward conferred, does not arise on account of a man's own 
works or deservings, or of any justice inherent in him. Such is the meaning of the Apostles, and 
such is the language of the Greek and Latin Fathers of the primitive ages. It accords, too, with 
the ^concise declaration which the Church of England sets forth in her eleventh Article, as well as 
with the fuller explanation given by her in the §homily on salvation, to which a reference is here made. 
Let it be observed, that although this homily was drawn up in opposition to the Papistical notions 
respecting inherent justice, or the merit of works, yet it equally guards against the Calvinistic sup- 
position that faith is the meritorious cause of salvation. It. runs thus : " The true understanding of 
this doctrine, we be justified freely by faith without works, or that we be justified by faith in Christ 
only, is not, that this our own act to believe in Christ, or this our faith in Christ which is within us, 
doth justify us, (for that were to count ourselves to be justified by faith by some act or virtue that is 
within ourselves;) but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear God's 
word and believe it; although we have faith, hope, charity, repentance, dread and fear of God 
within us, and do never so many good works thereunto ; yet we must renounce the merit of all our 
said virtues of faith, hope, and charity, and all other virtues and good deeds, which tue either have done, 
shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak s and insufficient, and imperfect, to deserve remission 
of our sins and our justification. 

* Gen. c. xv. v. 6. \ Errata, page 79. 

J " Tanlum propter meritum Domini, ac Servatoris nostri Jesu Christi, per fidem, non propter opera et merit a nostra, 
isti coram Deo reputamur." Ar t i c l e xi . 

§ See Third Homily, Second Part, p. 22, 



96 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



Book. Ch. 


Ver 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6n 


Eph. i. 


6. 


npa$ S" riyx- 


In qua grati 
ficavit nos in 
dilecto filio 
suo. 


Wherein he 
hath gratified 
us in his be- 

1 JO 

loved bon. 
Others read 
'graced us,'&cc. 


Qua nos gratis 
sibi acceptos ef 
fecit in illo 

dilecio. 
Mont, too, 
omits ' jlllo 
suo.' 


' made us ac- 
cepted,' &c. 


Wherein he hath 
i made us accept- 
ed ' in the be- 
loved. 

(107) 


Dan. vi. 


22. 


'On xccrcvam 
uvtov tvBvnt; 

Cm) 


Quia coram 
eo justitia in- 
vpntfl est in 

me. 


Because before 
him justice was 
found in me. 


Mont, ren- 
ders 1=1 (Lxx. 

SvQwrnc 1 OV 7)7/- 

ritas. 


£ my justice was 
found out.' 


Forasmuch as be- 
fore him ' inno- 
cency was found 
in me. 

(108) 


Rom. iv. 6. 


KciSansg km 
Aa&^Xfyet rot 
f^ay.cc^iaf/.ov tov 
dcyS '^ui7i ov , *w o 

<}iY.0t\QOVm» x a ~ 


Sicut et Da- 
vid dicit bea- 

titudinem 
hominis, cui 
Deus accepto 
fert justitiam 

sine operi- 
bus. 


As David also 
termeth the 
blessedness of 

a man, to whom 
God repute th 

justice without 
works. 


Sicut etiam 
David de- 
clarat beatum 
eum hominem, 
cui Deus impu 
tat justitiam 
absqne 
operibus. 


as David ' de 
scribeth,' &c. 

unto whom 
God imputeth 

' righteous- 
ness. 7 


Even as David 
also 'describeth' 
the blessed np«j<5 nf 
the man unto 
whom God im- 
puteth righteous- 
ness without 
works. 












Mont, impu- 
tat. 




(109) 



107. Hya7T^^t£J/60. Although the word 5»« be not in the original, yet Protestant commenta- 
tors have always considered 'beloved,' as applicable only to the ' Son.' But *Ward, who will not 
allow their language to convey the meaning intended by them, declares it to be quite the reverse ; for 
that by (( accepted in the beloved, they seem inclined to say, that in, or among all the beloved in the 



* Errata, page 78. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



97 



world, God has only accepted us ; as they make the angel in St. Luke say to our blessed lady: " hail ! 
freely beloved, to take away all grace inherent and resident in the blessed virgin, or in us." This is 
such a perversion of the Protestant interpretation, that it would be but a waste of time to say much 
about it. To say that the blessed virgin was ' freely accepted/ or freely beloved by God's grace and 
favour, in, and through his beloved Son, by no means implies a diminution of the gracious gifts 
which were imparted to her most abundantly, and to us in an inferior degree. It is, surely, a most 
extraordinary thing, that the Popish Doctors should ever lose sight of Christ, when they speak of 
justice before God. 

St. Chrysostom, whom Ward quotes as advocating the doctrine of inherent justice, is misrepre- 
sented in a shameful manner. That Father's meaning amounts to this, that the virtues by which the 
soul is inwardly endued and beautified, are not the cause why men are justified before God ; but that 
this ariseth from his mercy through Christ, for whose sake he accepts this imperfect holiness, and re- 
wards it with everlasting glory. There is nothing in all this of justification on account of virtues, and 
good qualities, inherent in men. 

108. * 13 ' This is adduced as another "falsification" of the Protestant Translators, with the 
design of taking away inherent justice, which was in Daniel." The lxx, it may be seen, adopt the 
word evSviw as best conveying the meaning of the Hebrew word ; while Montanus prefers puritas, as 
its translation, to the Vulgate reading justitia. But 'justitia' is not the only word in the text from 
which the Popish commentators infer this doctrine, since they likewise derive it from quia, as if that 
word were always used as a causal conjunction, t One of Pole's annotators clearly points out the 
error of supposing it to denote a meritorious cause. To return, however, to the words of the pro- 
phet. In tone place he says, " we do not present our supplications before thee, for our righteousness :" 
thus he more than intimates, that he does not s,xak of bis own justice, or righteousness, as he 
expressly, and wi;h peculiar eloquence, entirely disclaims it. In §another place it is equally apparent, 
that he did not speak of any virtue inherent in himself. " But as for me, this secret is not revealed 
to me, for any wisdom that I have more than any living." Moreover, how could the justice, or 
innocency, which was in Daniel, diminish, as Ward insinuates, aught of that which was in Christ 
and which justified him, and all righteous men, in the sight of God. Hence it appears, that the test 
connected with the foregoing number, does not, as the Popish Doctors infer, give any countenance 
to the doctrine of inherent justice. 

10Q. AsySl, " It must needs," says Ward, " be a spot of the same infection, that they 
translate describeth here, as though imputed righteousness (for so they had rather say, than justice) 

* Puritas, Buxtorf. Innocency. Parkh. 

t " Hinc Papists justitiam operum et merita colligunt, ex voce quia, et quod causam hie redJit liberationis. Verum non 
causam hie notat meritoiiam, sed occasionalcm." Vid. Pol. Synops. in loc. 

% Lxx. Vers. On Hk ewi reu% SixaioiwaMs Dan. c. ix. v. 18. Polanus well observes in his comments on this text : 

" opponit Daniel merita hominum et misericordiam Dei, ut satis declaret base simul esse non posse, i;ec magis conjungi posse 
qnam aquam cum igne." Ibidem. 

§ Ofx e» e-of.ci t»j sari tv tpoi irct^x wanas w? &>vra?. Lxx, Vers. Dan, c, ii. v. 30. 

O 



98 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 

were the description of blessedness." Surely, what St. Paul says of the righteousness imputed by 
God, is nothing but a description of man's happiness. The verb uyo, is, strictly speaking, ' to say,' 
' to pronounce;' nor is any thing meant by the word <e describeth," but that David sets forth or pro- 
nounces the blessedness of man. To say the least of it, " describeth" comes as near the Greek 
JtsyEi ; as ' termeth ' does the Latin word (licit. Besides, the latter English version of the word signi- 
fies to define, as much as the former. Hence it is concluded, that they only are happy, they only 
are saved, who are justified by grace, and not on the ground of merit; and that, through the remis- 
sion of sins, the ungodly are justified according to grace, and that their faith, when productive of good 
works, is accounted unto them for righteousness. It may, then, be fairly presumed, that no candid 
judge will declare, that the one translation countenances, or that the other discountenances, the doc- 
trine of 'inherent justice.' 



SECTION XVII.— SUFFICIENCY OF FAITH ALONE. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible. 1568. 


K. James'sBible 1611 


Heb. x. 22. 




in plenitu- 
dine fidei. 


in fulness of 
faith. 


certa persua- 
sione fidei. 


' in assurance,' 


' in full assurance* 
of faith. 

(no) J 


1 Cor. xiii. 2. 


MY, &C. 


Et si habuero 
omnem fi- 
dem ita ut 

montes 
transferam, 
Sec. 


And if I should 
have all faith, 
so that I ronlrl 
remove moun- 
tains, &c. 


Et si habeam 
totam fidem 

adeo ut montes 
transferam, 
&c. 


*' whole faith,' 
&c. 


And though I 
have ' all' faith, 
so that I could 
remove moun- 
tains. 

(Ill) 


Ibid. xii. 31. 


L'irif&'j'Kxv ooov 

v/juv ^etXWfil. 


Et adhuc 
excellentio- 
rem viam vo- 
bis demon- 
stro. 


And yet I shew 
you a more ex 
cellent way. 


Et porro iter 
ad excellentiam 
vobis indicabo. 
Mont, secuti- 
dum excellen- 
tiam. 


*a way ' to ex 
cellency.' 


And yet I shew 
unto you a more 
' excellent ' way. 

(112) 


Jam. ii. 22. 


BXetTcIS OTl r, 

aura. 


Vides quo- 
niam fides co- 
operabatur 
operibus 
illius. 


Seest thou that 
fai.h did work 
with his works. 


Vides fidem ad- 

ministram 
fuisse operum 
ipsius. 


*that faith 'was 
a helper ' of his 
works. 


Seest thou how 
faith ' wrought, ' 
with his works. 

(113) 




Marked thus * icere altered to their present reading A.D. 16] 1. 


- I 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



99 



110. TlhYipOQOpiCL, fWard says, "all other means of salvation being thus taken a\vay s 
their only and last refuge is faith alone." How sadly is the Church of England here maligned. Her 
sentiments respecting this particular subject, are, that not only f faith alone/ but even when it is 
productive of good works, is insufficient and imperfect to deserve the remission of a man's sins, and 
his justification. So inestimable a benefit can only flow from the fountain of divine mercy, through 
the merits of a crucified Saviour. This exposition shews to what extent faith by itself is effectual ; 
in it is nothing of what Ward calls a " special faith," according to which, he says, every man con- 
siders himself as " the Son of God, and one of the elect predestined to salvation." 

' It is with more than ordinary satisfaction, that reference is again made to the last and ablest pro- 
duction of the Bishop of Lincoln, for the purpose of removing such foul calumny. The work of this 
distinguished prelate cannot be too highly appreciated by every sincere friend of the established Church, 
as it comprehends, in its fullest extent, the clearest and most convincing arguments in defence of that 
perfect form of sound doctrine which she inculcates ; and as it is, in very truth, the standard of orthodoxy 
itself. As it is not only desirable to vindicate the Protestant, but likewise to disabuse the Papist, the 
following passage is cited from it : " +The expressions of faith only, and faith without works, were 
not intended to exclude the necessity of works, as the condition of salvation." §Again, " our 
Reformers excluded the merit of faith, as well as the merit of works ; but they were particularly 
anxious, upon every occasion, to exclude the pretended merit of works, as being the grand pillar which 
supported the Church of Rome." 

Ward goes on to say, " for maintaining this heresy, they force the Greek text to express the 
very word of assurance, and certainty, thus; in full assurance of faith." The propriety of the Eng- 
lish given by the Protestant Translators, is confirmed by the best Lexicons; besides, it varies from 
that of the Rhemists in so trifling a degree, that the controverted point will be decided in a manner, 
as soon by ' fulness,' the word adopted by them, as by ' full assurance.' 

But he observes, " the Apostle joins the word sometimes with faith, sometimes with hope, 
and sometimes with knowledge, to signify the fulness of all three." Very true, St. Paul does so; for 
why should there not be a certain assurance of hope and knowledge, as well as of faith ? Indeed, the 
assurance of hope depends upon the assurance of faith, which, in its turn, rests on that of knowledge. 
Jerome himself renders ||w**>$o$>o§«8hs plenissime sciens, and the Rhemists, i( most fully knowing," 
which, as it signifies more than * fulness,' is going somewhat farther than what Ward desired. 

" The Greek Fathers," ^Ihe says, " expound the text, of the fulness of faith." This is not the 
case, as will appear by quoting, first, Ignatius's words: " **The Church of God the Father, being fully 
assured in faith and love :" and next those of Basil, " ttto the full assurance of the good." To the 

*« Foil of conviction or assurance." Pakkh. f Errata, page 81. 

% See Refutation of Calvinism, C. iii. page 153. 
| Ibidem. || Romans, civ. v. 21. 

^[ Errata, page 81. 
** Exx?i»i(7i« Ses ntv'hrizptpoerip.tvri it mru n%i ctyccvy. Ignat. Epist. ad Smyr. 
•ft Eif \f.tv mm ayaSwv, 8fC. BASIL. hSix, XXVI. 

o 2 



100 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



same effect Chrysoston> writes In the same sense it is understood in the Bibliotheca Sacra Margarini ; 
*" fully instructed in faith and charity, I have known you absolutely perfect, in a stedfast faith." 

It will not now, surely, be questioned, that the charge of misconstruction, respecting the word 
irMsopopx, against the Protestant Translators, is as ill-founded as any preferred by Ward, in his cata- 
logue of Errata. 

ill. 112. The Protestant version has been conformed to the Rhemish one, as in the texts 
corresponding with these numbers, when grounds sufficient to warrant such a procedure appeared 
to exist. In observing this rule, however, the English Translators could only be said to be partially 
guided by the Vulgate, (whence the Rhemish Version is derived,) and in a certain degree, to have made 
it auxiliary to their undertaking. Their conduct, in this particular, most strongly evinces their impartiality 
and candour, and the spirit of truth by which they were actuated. 

1 13. TfUPTj^ySl, This number might have been joined with the two immediately preceding, as 
the remarks made on them apply to it, but that Ward has made an observation, which requires to be 
distinctly noticed. " It is," he says, " an impudent handling of Scripture, to make works the fruit 
only, and effect of faith ; which is their heresy." If it be a heresy, it is one of that description, the 
foundation of which is laid in the Apostle's words: viz. t" seest thou how faith wrought with his works, 
and byxiwks was faith made perfect ?" Works are aptly said to spring from faith, as the fruit from U 
tree ; for if the fruit be good, they prove the tree to be so : therefore, the life of justification is faith, 
and its fruits are good works. Thus, after Abraham was justified by faith, which " was counted to him 
for righteousness," his faith wrought with works. " A godly faith,'' says jAugustin, " will not be 
without hope and charity." And Bede on this text observes ; " a good life is inseparable from faith 
which worketh by love." Protestants, like those Fathers, conclude that justifying faithis never with- 
out good works. For as it is expressed in the §homily, quoted in the preceding Section, " as great and 
as godly a virtue as the lively faith is, yet it putteth us from itstlf, and remitteth or appointeth us unto 
Christ, for to have only by him remission of our sins, or justification." || Again : " we put our faith in 
Christ, that we be justified by him only." If some of the Reformers laid such stress on those pas- 
sages in Scripture, in which it is said that Christians are justified by faith only, as to afford their 
adversaries reason to charge them with denying the necessity of Good Works, their chief object was 
to persuade the people to believe in Christ, and not in the Church ; yet 11" they all taught, that though 
good works were not necessary to justification, yet they were necessary to salvation. They differed, 
also, from the Papists in their notion of Good Works : the Church of Rome taught, that the 
■honour done to God in his images, or to the Saints in their shrines and relics, or to the priests, were 
the best sort of good works; whereas the Reformers pressed justice and mercy most, and discovered 
the superstition of the other. The opinion of the merit of Good Works was also so highly raised, 
that many thought they purchased heaven by them. This the Reformers did also correct, and taught 
the people to depend merely upon the death and intercession of Christ." 

* plene instructi in fide, et charitate, et cognovi ves absolute perfectos in fide stabili. Bib. Sac. Marg. 

| James, c ii. v. 22. + De fide et oper. C3p. xxiii. 

| Homily on Salvation, Second Part. y Ibid. Third Part. % See Burnet's Abridgment. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 101 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's LatinText 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6'n 


Luke xviii. 
14. 


7ns"*C <rn warns 

CT£. 


respice, fide? 
tua tesalvum 
fecit. 


receive thy 
sight; thy faith 
hath made thee 
whole. 


recipito visum : 
fides tua te ser- 

vavit. 
Mont, serva- 
vit te. 


thy faith hath 
' saved ' thee. 


receive thy sicrht : 
thy faith hath 
saved thee. 

(11,) 


Mark v. 34. 


owxe ere. 


Fides tua te 
salvum fecit. 


Thy faith hath 
made thee safe. 

N. B, In 
some editions, 

" whole.'' 


Fides tua te 
servavit. 


*hath e saved 
thee.' 


Thy faith hath 
made thee whole. 

(115) 


Ibid. x. 52. 


id. 


id. 


" made thee 

safe." 
According to 
others, " made 
thee whole.'' 


id. 


*hath ' saved 
thee.' 


Thy faith hath 
made thee whole. 

(116) 



Marked thus * were altered to their present reading A. D. 1611. 



114. ^SPOOKS, Ward says, " because they know, to be saved imports rather the salvation of 
the soul : and, therefore, when faith is joined with it, they translate it rather saved, than healed, to in- 
sinuate their justification by faith only." Such a declaration could only spring from a wilful perversion 
of the truth, or the most consummate ignorance. Protestant expositors understand by "saved," a *cure 
being effected, cured : and do not at all refer it to the eternal salvation of the soul. In this respect, 
they but follow the translators themselves, who indifferently used the words ' healing,' making safe,' 
and ' making whole.' It therefore amounts to the same thing, whether the phrase be " thy faith hath 
saved thee" or " thy faith hath made thee whole." 

115. 1 16. The texts connected with these numbers are rendered alike in both the Protestant and 
Rhemish Versions; that circumstance, however, is not sufficient to prevent the imputation of error 
being thrown on the former. 

" To conclude," says Ward, " I will refer any Protestant Solifidian to the words of St. James the 
Apostle, where he will find, that faith alone without works cannot save him." The eleventh of the 
xxxix articles, and the homily on t justification, independently of every other document, while they ex- 
press the sense of the Church of England on this head, are the best refutation of such censure it 
being not less contemptible than false. 



* See Clarke's Paraph, on Luke, c. xviii. v 42. 
f The Third Homily is generally, although improperly, so called. 



102 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



SECTION XVIII.— APOSTOLIC TRADITIONS. 



Book Ch.Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza'sLatinText 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBible 1611 


2 Thess. ii 
15. 


xaxTll'fl T»; 

eJiJ«^8»)TS eite 
ha.>.oys, eite Si 


tenete tradi 
tiones. quas 
didieistis.sive 
per sermo- 
nem, sive per 
epistolam 
nostram. 


hold the tradi- 
tions Winch 
you have learn- 
ed, whether it 
be by word 

or by 
our epistle. 


retinete tradi- 

tam doctrinam. 
quam edocti 

estis, sive per 
sermonem, 

sive per episto- 
lam nostram. 


*' ordinances.' 


lold the ' tradi- 
tions ' which ye 
have been taught, 
whether by word 
or our epistle. 

(117) 


Ibid. iii. 6. 


Kai f/.i) y.xTa 

•7TU.Q %j/.WV. 


Et nnn se 
cundum tra 
ditionein, 
quam 
acceperuni a 
nobis. 


And not ac- 
cording to the 
tradition, which 

they have 
rprpivpfl of us 


Et non ex tra- 
dita doctrina 
quam accepit 
a nobis. 


instruction. 

r 


And not after the 
tradition which he 
received of us. 

(118) 


J Cor. xi. 2. 


StlKOi 'vjJUV TCti 
T£X,£T£. 


et sicut tra- 

didi vobis, 
prtecepta mea 
tenetis. 


and as I have 
delivered unto 
you, you keep 
my c precepts.' 


et sicut tradidi 
vobis, tradi- 
tiones retinetis. 


' ordinances.' 


and keep the ' or- 
dinances' as I de- 
livered them to 
you. 








N. B. Some 
editions have 
' ordinances.' 


Mont. 

' traditiones. ' 




(H9) 



Marked thus * were altered to their present reading A. D. 1611. 



117- U8. Hapa.$0<ri$. As the Protestant Translators in Ifjl 1, conformed the English trans- 
ition of this term to that of the Rhemists, it would have been unnecessary to say a word, but for 
an observation made by Ward. " A general mark," *he says, « wherewith all heretics that have 
ever disturbed God's Church, have been branded, is, to reject apostolical traditions, and to fly to the 

* Errata, page 83. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



103 



Scripture." This is the sort of language held by Doctor Milner, Mr. Fletcher, and every other 
Popish writer of the present day. The Scripture with them is nothing but a dead letter, a mere non- 
entity, compared with their traditions, and the living speaking authority of their Church. Nothing 
surely can be conceived more absurd than this opinion of theirs. For what can be a fitter criterion 
by which to determine a disputed point, than the written word of God ? 

That the tradition spoken of by the Apostle, only applies to the doctrines and precepts, which 
the Apostles delivered to the world as Revelations from God, is clearly ascertained from these words 
of St. Paul: " *and not after, (or according to) the tradition which he received from us." No doc- 
trine, therefore, can be admitted as traditions, which do not rank among those writings, which are 
allowed to be the genuine productions of the inspired teachers. They are aptly called w«gife( f) 
because the Apostles received the doctrines of the gospel from Christ by Revelation, and as such, 
delivered them to the world. This view of the matter decidedly overthrows the Popish sense of 
traditions, as being oral or unwritten. Besides, from the ftext itself, it appears that traditions 
were delivered partly by preaching, and partly by epistle; so that even here, the Popish sense is con- 
travened, inasmuch as tradition is said not to be solely confined to oral communication ; and as the 
doctrine which the Apostle delivered orally was not all contained in his Epistle to the Thessalonians, it 
does not necessarily follow, that it was not written in some other part of Scripture. This will meet 
the objection which might be started from the words St* ;v>y«, < by word.' The tradition spoken of in 
the passage of the Epistle to the Thessalonians, already quoted, is mentioned a few verses after, viz. 
"Jthat if any would not work, neither should he eat." St. Paul inculcates this doctrine in another 
part of his writings, where he intreats those he addresses, " to §\valk worthy of the vocation, where' 
with they were called." To confirm this interpretation, collateral evidence is not wanting, 
since the testimony of Ignatius, one of the Apostolic Fathers, as recorded by Eusebius, ascer- 
tains what the traditions of the Apostles were. When on his way to Rome, he addressed the 
churches by which he passed, and " Hexhorted them to hold tenaciously the tradition of the Apostles, 
which, having testified that it was now for (the greater) certainty committed to writing, he deemed 
it necessary that it should be plainly taught." This fact, attested as it is by a disciple of the Apostles, 
is of itself sufficient to determine the matter at issue. 

In the Rhemish New Testament, re-published in Edinburgh, i 797, a note occurs so much in 
the style of Ward's remarks, as to deserve particular notice. It is on the passage in Thessalonians, 
on which he lavishes so much comment, and is to this effect : " See here that the unwritten tra- 
ditions of the Apostles are no less to be received than their Epistles." The main question has, to 
be sure, been already disposed of ; it is, however, impossible not to observe the marked similarity 
between the Papists of the present day, and the Pharisees of old, who preferred the sayings of their 

* See last column, No. 118. t 2Tbess. c. ii. v. 15. ( 

% 2 Thess. c. iii. v. 10. § Ephes. c. iv. v. I. 

iyino. Euseb, Eccl. Hist. lib. iii. c. 35. 



104 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 

Scribes and Elders, to the word of God. The ^Jewish historian says, " the Pharisees have delivered 
to the people, by tradition from the fathers, many injunctions which are not written in the laws of 
Moses ; for which reason, the sect of the Sadducees rejects them, saying, that what are written, 
should be esteemed obligatory, but that they ought not to observe those which come by such tra- 
dition.'" Christ himself, the highest possible authority, has not been silent on the matter, as appears 
from his reproof of the Scribes and Pharisees, when he said, " fThus have ye made the command- 
ment of God of none effect, by your tradition." 

liy. It does not admit of a doubr, but that the Apostles, from time to time, verbally delivered 
the doctrine of the Gospel to the different churches ; but no evidence whatever can be adduced to 
prove, that they taught or delivered any necessary to salvation, which is not found either in the 
Old, or New Testament. It matters not, that they gave directions about ceremonies, order, or 
discipline, conformable to the general rules laid down in Scripture, as they were about things indif- 
ferent in themselves, and changeable in their nature. So that, although ' precepts' such as those 
alluded to by Ward, were at first orally communicated, yet as they cannot, at this distance of time, 
be considered as Apostolic, from their not holding a place in the New Testament, they should conse- 
quently be rejected. Will, then, the Popish Doctors say there is nothing traditional written ; although 
having before their eyes the doctrine which respects the death, burial, resurrection of Christ, his mi- 
racles, &c. as recorded by the Evangelists ? Will they maintain that there is nothing traditional in 
their sacred narrative ? If they will not, as they cannot, it may be fairly concluded, that the tradi- 
tions spoken of by the Apostle, were committed to writing either by himself, or by some of his inspired 
brethren ; and, consequently, that there are no extra-scriptural traditions in existence. 

It may be proved, even from the Vulgate Latin itself, that the first translators of the Protestant 
Bible did not ' wilfully' mistranslate w* ia $oei< •, much less that they were guilty of ' heresy and corrup- 
tion,' as Ward says, when they rendered the word — ordinances. In the §text belonging to the pre- 
sent number, Jerome rendered it pracepta. Now it is evident, that if he did not consider that term 
and tradiiiones synonymous, he would not have indifferently used them as a fit construction of the 
same Greek noun. He likewise rendered \\7ra^yfiMx;, praecepta ; and Hefo, traditiones ; which proves 
that he understood those Greek words to bear the signification of w^Soan, not less than the Latin ones 
themselves. Therefore it follows, that, as traditions, precepts, ordinances, &c. are the literal English 
of either the Greek or Latin terms, the use of any of them cannot be deemed either an error or 
a corruption. So that before Ward could, with any shew of fairness, have preferred a complaint 
against the English Translators, he should have shewn that Jerome was justifiable in the version 
made by him. In fine, no defence could be set up for, nor charge made against them, which is not in 
this particular case also applicable to him. * 

* Hoptpx IIOAAA f it ct I1APEAOSAN tu $yx,cf 'oi Qugtcrctioi t)t r.arquiv ^aJop^Tic, aWE§ ax. a.ia.yiy^a.is\a.\ it toi; Mwj91ea>{ Ktyto/f, xat Jia tstc 
nrxvra. to Xxicaxxiati yuo; ex^x?J.ti, fcyo-/ ixuvx ha '/iyaaScci »o^ijtta Ta ysy •(a.py.iia. , ra o 1 ' ex IIAPAA02Efl2 TUN IlATPiiN. TJj^eiv. Jo- 

sephus, Ant. lib. xiii. cap. x. §. 6. 

t Maf. c. >.v. v. 6. and Mark, c. vii. v. 13. 
§ Seehst column, No. 119. || 1 Thess. c. iv. v. 2. ^[ Acts, c. vi. v. 14. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 161 L 105 



Book.Ch.Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps, Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei.6n 


Col. ii. 20. 


E» ovv aneSa,- 

ViTS <TW T(J 

a.nto tut 
rotj(iiii»HS y.o!7- 
fytu, ri ^umj 


Si ergo mor- 
tui estis cum 

Christo ab 
elementishu- 
jus mundi : 
quid adhuc 
tanquam vi- 
ventes in 
mundo de- 
cernitis ? 


If then you be 

dead with 
Christ from the 
elements (some 
editions have 
rudiments) of 
this world, why 
do you yet de- 
cree as living in 
the world? 


Itaque si mor- 

tui cum 
Christo, liberi. 
estis ab demen- 
tis mundi, quid 
ut viventes in 
mundo, ritibus 
oneramini ? 


why as 

though living in 
the world, ' are 
ye led with ' 
traditions?' 

i 


Wherefore, if ye 

be dead with 
Christ from the 
rudiments of the 
world, why, as 
though living in 
the world, < are 
ye subject to tra- 
ditions?' 

(120) 


1 Pet. i. 18. 


E/^OTl? oTl 8 

^S«|rotf, ctgyv- 

S?lUTfw3>)Te IK 
T»)f fjUXTMCL< 


Scientes 
quod non 
corruptibili- 
bus auro vel 
argento re- 
dempti estis 
de vana ves- 
tra conversa- 
tion pater- 
nae traditio- 
nis. 


Knowing that 
not with cor- 
ruptible things, 
gold or silver, 
you are re- 
deemed from 
your vain con- 
versation of 
your fathers' 
tradition. 


Ut qui sciatis 
vos non cadu- 
cisrebus, argen- 
to vel auro, 
fuisse redemp- 
tos ex vana ilia, 
vestra conver- 
sation, et a 
patribus tra- 
dita. 

Mont, pater- 
nd traditione 
accepta. 


the tradition 
of the fathers.' 


Forasmuch as ye 
know that ye 
were not redeem- 
ed with corrup- 
tible things, as 
silver and gold, 
from your vain 
conversation e re- 
ceived by tradi- 
tion from your 
fathers.' 

(121) 



120. *AoyjU,CCn£W8"£. fWardsays, that the first Protestant Translators rendered this term 
so as " to make the very name of tradition odious among the people ; and though some of these 
gross corruptions are corrected by their last translators, yet we have no reason to think they were 
amended out of any good or pure intention, but to defend some of their own traditions, viz. wearing 
the rochet, surplice, &c." From the first English version of the Greek verb, viz. " why are ye led with 
traditions;" it appears the translators were desirous to distinguish between the ^commandments of God 
and the doctrines of men. Their motive for doing so, although the contrary is alleged, is one of the purest 

* Decerno, dogma aliquod introduce dico aliquid quod pro certo dogmate habeo. Scap. " To have ordinances imposed 
on one j to be subject, or to submit to ordinances. Parkh. 

j> Errata, page 83. + Matt. c. xv. r.g. and Col. c. ii. v. 22. 

P 



106 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 

and most laudable kind. Nor is their sincerity impeached in the slightest degree, because their succes- 
sors, with better judgment, altered their version to the present reading, viz. " why are ye subject to 
ordinances." It may be here observed, that the reciprocal use of ordinances and traditions is nothing 
but what occurs, as has been already shewn in the Vulgate text, in the use of the terms \prcccepta and 
traditiones. 

Montanus understands the Greek verb in the passive sense, which is in direct opposition to the 
Rhemish interpretation. *Vorstius assigns a most convincing reason, why it should be translated 
passively ; for that St. Paul did not address the arrogjfnt teachers themselves, but the hearers 
on whom they imposed restraints. Erasmus, Grotius, and other eminent critics, take it in the same 
signification; and, impressed with the same opinion, the Protestant Translators framed their version; 
but, be its acceptation what it may, it neither condemns, nor establishes Popish traditions. 

It is rather extraordinary that Ward has not produced any of the Fathers to support the Popish 
exposition ; particularly as^ he is not scrupulous about bringing them forward in other places, and in not 
only deducing a meaning from their writings, which they do not bear, but in making them say what 
they never said. But even did grounds exist for accusing the English Translators with error, mistrans- 
lation, and heresy, yet a regard for the word of God itself, wherever found, should have made the 
Popish Doctors more reserved in preferring charges, which may be brought home to themselves in a 
tenfold degree. For, unquestionably, the version of the Scriptures made by the Divines of Douay 
and Rheims, but imperfectly represents the Vulgate, which version itself is not a perfect represen- 
tation of the original. It is submitted to the learned reader, whether the following selections, from 
numberless others in these translations, do not fully prove the truth of the assertion. 

frWoxtw; stabulum. tua^o^; stabulario. ^n^aa/ confessus est. HH^o-a^v ; cecinimus. ^we™** 
fasnum. **m<>«»r; navicula. Wide as Jerome's Latin is from the spirit of the Greek text, the Eng- 
lish of the Rhemists departs still farther from his meaning. Stabulum ; an inn. Confessus est; promised. 
Cecinimus ; piped. Navicula ; a ship. Quod factum ; which was chanced. Salvamini ; save your- 
selves, &c. &c. It is to be recollected that some of the English terms are not objected to, when com- 
pared with the original, but when considered as a literal translation of the Vulgate text. 

121. ttLl GtTpo TTap d jfWard brands this as another ' notorious falsification,' and says, 
that the English Translators, " foist in the word tradition, and for delivered, say received; because 
it sounds with the simple people, to be spoken against the traditions of the Roman Church." 
It may be observed, that the censure, which he here throws on the Protestant Translation, for 
Jiaving the word tradition 'foisted' into it, as he elegantly expresses it ; is equally applicable to the 

* " Non enim ipsos imperiosos doctores, sed auditores tantum, Paulus alloquitur, quibus illi leges imponebant." Vid. 
Pol. Synops. in loc. 

f Luke, ex. v. 34. $ Ibid. v. 35. § Acts, c. vii. v. 17. || Matt. c. xi. v. 17, 

% Matt. c. xiv. v. 19. ** Luke, c. 5. v. 7. 

+t A patre traditus, quoq. a patre receptus. Scap. 
it Errata, page 83. 



, OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 107 

Rhemish one. Nor does he condemn one more than the other, when he gives a version of his own 
which differs from both, viz. 15 from your vain conversation delivered by the Fathers." He uses 
the words ' delivered by ;' and the English translators e received by according to Scapula, Park- 
hurst, &c. the Greek term admits of either construction. All which can be inferred from the pas- 
sage, however understood, is, that there were then in existence, spurious traditions; but neither 
translation determines one way or other, respecting supposed Popish traditions. 

One cogent reason among others, why the word ' tradition ' has been inserted in the English 
text, seems to arise from the abuse to which it is converted by the Popish expositors, who limit it to 
such subjects only, as are delivered orally, never committed to writing, and handed down from one 
age to another. Is it not after the same manner that both Jews and Gentiles proceeded ? The tra- 
ditions of the former, obscured the law of God ; those of the latter, taught them idolatry ; hence 
a strong argument in favour of the false religion of these, as well as of the errors of the true religion 
of those — that they had been handed down to them by their fathers. 



SECTION XIX.— SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBiblei6n 


Eph. V. 32. 


To f*t/{U§/0» 

tuto fxiya. irn' 
eya h htyu s»s 

p^S-OH, KOSI ft{ 


Sacramen- 
tum hoc mag- 
num est, ego 
autem dico in 
Christo et in 
ecclesia. 


This is a 
great sacra- 
ment, but I 
speak in Christ 
and in the 
Church. 


Mysterium 
hoc magnum 
est : loquor 
autem de 
Christo et de 
ecclesia. 

Mont. 

in Christum 
et in 
eccksiam. 


..This is a great 
* secret,' &c. 


This is a great 
• mystery,' but P 
speak concerning 
Christ and the 
Church. 

(122) 



122. M:Vg"/)piQV» *Ward says, " Protestants who reckon marriage no more than a civil con- 
tract, as it is amongst Pagans, translated this text accordingly, calling it in their first translations, 
instead of ' a great sacrament,' or ' mystery,' as it is in the Greek ; a great secret." Now in those 
very translations, with which he finds fault, c or mystery,' is expressed in a marginal note on the word 
' secret.' But this circumstance he does not acknowledge ; indeed, had he done so, he could not 
so freely have indulged in his illiberal remarks. Next, he never uttered a more unfounded accusa- 
tion, than in saying marriage is looked on by Protestants, as nothing but ' a civil contract inasmuch 
as they hold it to be a holy and honourable estate, and a sacred ordinance of God, representing the 

* Errata, page 85, 
P 1 



108 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 

mystical union which exists between Christ and his church. Nor is his falsehood more glaring than 
his ignorance, when he says: *'■' for the word mystery is the same in Greek, that sacrament is in 
Latin ;" in other words, that sacramentum is equivalent to pvnp*». For, the Latin word signifies an oath, 
whereas the other does not ; and besides, it implies holiness, which is not implied in the Greek word. 
It is admitted that the sacraments are called mysteries ; but by no means, that they are convertible 
terms. For a proof of this, the reader is principally referred to the Latin Vulgate. In the 
book of "j\Tobit, he will meet with the words sacramentum regis ; in the ^second Epistle to the 
Thessalonians, mysterium occurs ; and in ^Revelations, sacramentum mulieris, &c. as the translation 
of the same Greek word ^r^i<». The first of these texts is rendered by the Douay Translators, " the 
King's secret ;" while the Rhemists render the second and third mystery. But, according to Ward's 
mode of arguing, they might as well have made it the King's sacrament, the sacrament of the woman, 
&c. In short, there is no word in the Old or New Testament, which agrees with the word sacrament. 
It is a Latin word, and is used in a general sense, by the early ecclesiastical writers of the Western 
Church to express any sacred ceremony, rite, or mystery. Such as require fuller information on this 
subject are referred to Bingham's Antiquities of the Primitive Church. Book xii. chap. i. sect. 4. 
Thus it is manifest that this wretched calumniator not only betrays a palpable ignorance of 
those languages; but, what is more inexcusable, a total unacquaintance with the English trans- 
lations of his own church. 

But ' mystery,' as a translation of the text connected with this number, is not confined to the 
margin of the Protestant Bibles: it is inserted in the very body of the text in all those of 1 6 1 1 . 
As this is the case, it is strange that Ward should say, " if they should have called matrimony by 
that name, (viz. mystery) it would have sounded equally well as a sacrament also." It is a fact, with 
which he could not have been unacquainted, that for several years before he wrote his book, no 
other reading than that which he objects to, has been received in the Protestant Churches; and it 
must be equally known to his abettors of the present day, that since his time, now upwards of a cen- 
tury, no other has been used. Still they seem as dissatisfied, and as anxious as he was, to invent and 
propagate calumny and falsehood. 

Protestants, as has been already observed, deem marriage a great mystery, as containing an 
j|emblematical meaning of Christ's love to believers, who became his body; but they consider the 
setting it up as a sacrament, as a perversion of the express words of the Apostle. " But I speak," 
says St. Paul, " concerning Christ and the Church ;" this clause shews, that that which precedes it, 
viz. " this is a great mystery," does not at all relate to matrimony. From this exposition, therefore, 
it may be seen, how slender the only prop is, on which the Popish Church rests its sacrament of 
marriage. But, besides, if due enquiry be made, it will be found not to possess the remotest pretensions 
to be considered as a sacrament; notwithstanding that it was declared to be such by Pope Eugenius, 
and subsequently by the council of Trent. It has no outward, visible sign, nor prouise of inward, 
spiritual grace, which are indispensable requisites in a sacrament. 

* Errata, page 85 + C. xii. v. 7. \ c - v - 7- § C. xvii. V. 7- 

J| See this folly discussed in Macknight's commentary, vol. iii. page 342. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



109 



SECTION XX.— MISCELLANEOUS SUBJECTS. 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K. James'sBible 1611 


1 Chron. 
xxxvi. 8. 


tav Xoyav luoc- 
kou noma, 
a, imoirxriv , &C. 


Reliqua au- 
tem verbo- 
rum Joakim 
et abomina- 

tiones ejus 
quas opera- 
tus est, &c. 


But the rest of 
the words of 
Jehoiakim, and 
of his abomina- 
tions, which he 
wrought, &c. 




*and 'carved 
images that 
were laid to his 
charge,' &c. 


Now the rest of 
the acts of Jehoi- 
akim, and his abo- 
minations which 
he did, &c. 

(123) 


Acts ix. 22. 


6TI *8to; Br»» • 


affirmans 
quoniam hie 
est Christus. 


affirming that 
this is Christ. 


collatis testi- 
moniis demon- 
strans eum esse 
Christum. 

Mont. 
Conferens. * 


affirming, &c. 


e proving ' that 
this is very 
Christ. 

(124) 



Marked thus * altered to the present reading A. D. 1611. 

123. This text also was conformed to the Popish version in 1611. The acts of Jehoiakim, 
(viz. his disloyalty, or his worshipping carved images, or his having had impressions in honour of 
idols *found on his body) being in a manner specified in the first English versions of the Protestant 
Bible, gave offence to the Popish clergy. 

124. -fXvfJtJol^C&^OdVt +" By conferring one scripture with another. This is added more 
than is in the Greek, in favour of their presumptuous opinion, that the comparing of the Scriptures 
is enough for any man to understand them himself, solely by his own diligence and endeavour." In 
this confident tone does Ward accuse the Protestant Translators of adding to the English text, 
more words than the Greek warrants ; but not with more confidence than falsehood. For that sen- 
tence in particular, is not incorporated with the text in any of the English Bibles, which were in the 
hands of Protestants, antecedent to the publication of King James's one ; but was thrown into the 
margin, in the form of an explanatory note. The following are the exact readings of the passage in 
the undermentioned Bibles ; in which not one single word of those quoted by Ward is to be found. 

Coverdale's Bible : " And Saul confounded the Jews which dwelte at Damascus, affirming that this was verie Christ." 

Matthews's Bible : " affirming that this was verie Christ." 

The Geneva Bible: " confirming that this was the Christ." 

The Bishops Bible : ~ (< affirming that this was very Christ." 

After the detection and exposure of such vile misrepresentation, can it be said that the work 
falsely called the Errata of the Protestant Bible, is entitled to the praises lavished' on it by 
Doctor Milner, and his Irish Episcopal Brethren ? 

* Scil. " impressiones quae inventae sunt in eo ; i. e. stigmata quaedam, quae imprimi curaverat corpori ipsius in honorem 
dolorum." Vid. Pol. Synops. in loc. 

t " Laying and comparing arguments together." Park». * Errata, page 85. 



HO A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



Book Ch. Ver 



1 Pet. i. 25 



Taro es-» to 
to tvayfe- 



1 Cor. ix. 16, 



Jam, iv. 6. 



Col. i. 23. 



Orig. Greek. 



Hoc est au- 
tem verbum 
quod evange- 
lizatum in 
vos. 



Earn yotg tvxy- 
£$■( f*ot xav- 



Tit svetyTtKM, 

SV 7rC££T>) TM fT4' 

crei t)7To t«» 



Vulgate Text. 



Rhemish Version, 



Nam si evan- 
gelizavero, 
non est mihi 
gloria. 



Majorem au- 
tem dat gra- 
tiam. 



EvangelH-- ; 
quod praedi- 
catum est in 
universacrea 

turn, &c. 



Beza's Latin Text 



And this is the 
word that is 
evangelized 
among you. 

In late editions, 
' which hath 

been 
preached." 



For and if I 
evangelize, it is 
no glory to me 
The R. Test. 
Edinb. edition, 

1804, 
and others, too, 
read, 
' For if I 
preach the gos- 
pel," &c. 

And giveth 
greater graces. 



Hoc autem est 
verbum illud, 
quod evangeli- 
zatum est 
vobis. 



Of the goS' 
pel—, which is 

preached 
among all crea- 
tures. 

In late editions, 
in all the 
creation.* 



Bps. Bible, 1568 



Etenim si evan- 
gelizem, non 
est quod glo- 
rier. 



Sed majorem 
offert gratiam, 



Evangelii, prse- 

dicati omni 
creaturae quae 
sub caslo est. 



which ( by 

the gospel,' 
&c 



For though < 
preach the 
gospel,' 



But 1 the scrip 
ture ' offereth 
more grace. 



< that it 

was preached. 



K.James'sBibleiGii 



And this is the 
word which ' by 
the gospel is 
preached' unto 
you. 



(125) 

For though I 
preach the gospel, 
I have nothing to 
glory of. 



(126) 



But ' he ' giveth 
more grace. 



(127) 



-of the gospel-, 
and which was 
preached to every 
creature. 



(128) 



125. BvC(.yfBhlV§SV* a By the Gospel; these words," says *Ward, "are added deceitfully, 
and of ill intent to make the simple reader.think, that there is no other word of God, but the written 
word; for the common reader, hearing the word gospel, conceives nothing else. But, indeed all is 

* Errata, page 8f. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OP THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM JN 1611. 



til 



gospel, whatsoever the Apostles taught, either by writing, or by tradition, and word of mouth." It is 
the surest sign of a weak cause, when abuse is substituted for argument. Such happens to be the 
case in the present instance, as he attributes deceit, evil intention, imposture, &c. to the Protestant 
Translators, without advancing so much even as one solitary proof to support his assertions. But, 
independently of the absence of every thing like discussion, the charge made by him carries with it its 
own refutation. For, first, the *etymology of the verb warrants the use of the English given it. Next, 
except it be one whose mind is perverted by the worst prejudices, no reader capable of forming any 
opinion on the subject, (for Ward designates this lowest class of readers by the epithet < simple.') 
can, on hearing mention made of the gospel, suppose it to be confined to the historical narra- 
tive of the four Evangelists, and not to be equally extended to the writings of the Apostles ; nay, even to 
be contained in such sermons and exhortations, as set forth the way unto salvation. And lastly, 
evangelize ought to be rejected here, as corbana, pasche, azymes, parascue, gazophylace, enccenes, 
&c. &c. ought, in the texts where they occur in the Rhemish Testament. Such terms are unintel- 
ligible to the generality of readers, and are only calculated to excite a superstitious veneration for the 
mysteries of priest-craft in the minds of the vulgar ; undoubtedly, the principal, if not the sole cause 
of the Rhemish Translators having adopted what they style ecclesiastical or sacred words. 

To this procedure of theirs, Jerome, innocently indeed, seems thus far to have contributed. 
Many words, whose meaning he was unacquainted with, he set down in his translation in Greek 
characters, rather than admit the possibility of having the Scriptures adulterated by a false translation. 
And lo ! the effects of these pious intentions on the Rhemish Jesuits, they not only did not trans- 
late them as they were capable of doing into their vernacular dialect, but with superstitious veneration, 
left them unchanged, and even dignified them with the title of ecclesiastical. It is to be observed, 
that here, also, the Rhemists' themselves are involved in the odious charge brought by Ward against 
the Protestant Translators ; as they use the obnoxious term, and in a passage strictly parallel. The 
text of fSt. Matthew, viz. pauperes evangelizantur, they translate, " to the poor the Gospel is 
preached." It is scarcely credible, that he would have used the virulent language he did, or have so laid 
himself open to retaliation, had he been aware of this circumstance. But, surely, his ignorance can be 
no plea for his departure from truth and decency. 

In two separate editions of the Rhemish New Testament, printed at Edinburgh in 1797 and 1804, 
the word 'evangelise 5 has in several texts been altered, and a reading similar to that in the Protes- 
tant Bible substituted. How astonished Ward would be at this, were he now in existence : or, could 
he have foreseen it, would he not rather have assumed any other department of the polemic, than that 
of biblical criticism ? 

126. HvctyFsXlfyfJLOLl, On this article, as it is included under the same head with the pre- 
ceding one, scarcely any thing new can be offered by way of remark or illustration ; as the same de- 
fence which was set up for the Protestant Translation, and the same refutation of Ward's objections 
which was there made, are here equally applicable. However, it may not be improper to subjoin, that 

* IWyJeTwM/ and Gospel (from the Saxon) equally imply ' good tidings.' Pabkh. 
f ff'w^oi svayye^iCenM. Matt. C. xi. V. 5. 



112 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



although the expedient adopted by Jerome of turning into Latin characters any Greek word whose 
meaning he found himself unable to discover, did not originate with him, but with the authors of the 
Italic Version ; yet as he possessed the same anxious desire which vhey did of giving a faithful repre- 
sentation of the original, his candour is not the less praiseworthy. But the Rhemish Doctors have 
had no excuse to offer, for the barbarous admixture of Greek, and Latin terms, which they have intro- 
duced into their English Version of the New Testament. Were the truth avowed, they were pre- 
vented from giving an exact and literal translation of the Scriptures, solely by the^r apprehensions, lest 
the existence of a system which it had taken ages to establish, and which is so calculated in all its points 
and bearings to impose on the vulgar mind, should be, in the slightest degree, endangered. 

127. Although *Ward thinks it 'probable,' that the Apostle meant the ' spirit,' or 'Holy 
Ghost' as imparting more grace, and observes, " it is so expounded by many ;" yet he objects to the 
use of the pronoun he. They cannot be prevented, he says, " from inserting their commentary in 
the text, and restraining the Holy Ghost, to one " particular sense, where his words seem to be 
ambiguous." This objection originated in the pure spirit of cavil ; since the use of the pronoun but 
more directly pointed out the source, whence the grace flowed, which if omitted, must be understood ; 
as is manifest from the last clause of the verse immediately preceding. The difference, however, is per- 
fectly frivolous and immaterial. 

It is not a little remarkable that he, the introduction of which into the Protestant Version, Ward 
so strongly condemns, is inserted in the several editions of the Rhemish New Testament which have 
been published since the year 1752. According to him, the reading of the edition of 1582, that first 
published, is f' graces while the Vulgate Text is in the singular number, viz. gratiam ; and not 
only the original Greek is x*t», but also the septuagint Greek of the ^text, whence St. James made 
his quotation. 

128. K^YipV^SPTO^, The sign ' was' is preferable to ' is,' in a strict and literal sense, but as 
to the meaning, it is of the most trifling consequence, which is adopted ; .equally so is it, whether the 
reading be ' every creature,' or * all creatures.' What Ward asserts relative to the meaning of the 
first Protestant Translations of the passage, is grossly absurd. His words are " as though he (the 
Apostle) spoke not of the Gospel preached to them, but of a Gospel which they had only heard of, 
that was preached in the world." Now, how could it be possible that the Colossians should con- 
tinue in the belief of a Gospel not preached to them ; of which they only had received a report, that 
it was preached to others ? The first Protestant Translators did not think so, neither can the form of 
expression, which they used, be perverted so as to bear that meaning, except by the most y 
ingenuity. 

* Errata, page 87. t Se* column, Rhemish Version. 

+ Prov. c. iii. v. 34. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN \r,\\. 113 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 15G8. 


K.James'sBiblei6n 


1 Cor. xiv. 4. 


'O XjsAwv 


Qui loquitur 
lingua seip- 
sum sedificat 


He that speak - 
eth in a tongue 
edifieth him- 
self. 


Qui loquitur 
lingua, seipsum 
sedificat. 


.... ' itnknortn,' 
he. 


He that speaketh 
in an unknown 
tongue edifieth 
himself. 

(129) 


Rom. xii. 6. 


Kara tviii ava- 


secundum 
ratrqnem 
fidei. 


according to 
the rule of 
faith, 


prophelemus 
pro proportione 
fidei. 


.... after the 
'measure/ &c. 


according to the 
4 proportion ' of 
faith, 

(130) 


Ibid. viii. 39- 


awo t«; ayoc- 
7P?5 TS ©«*. 


a charitate 
Dei. 


from the cha- 
rity of God. 

In late editions, 
" from the 
love." 


a charitate Dei. 


from the 'love.' 


from the ' love ' 
of God. 

(131) 


1 Cor. i. 10. 


Kat « £» 


Et non sint 
in vobis 
schismata. 


That there be 
no schisms 
among you. 


Et non sint in- 
ter vos dis- 
sidia. 


aivisions 


And that there be 
no * divisions' 
among you. 

(132) 


Gal. t. 20. 


ai^scrsi;, &C. 


Dissen- 
tiones, sectse. 


• 

' heresies,' 
according to 

V V til U. 

' Sects,' in 
Rhem.T. 1582. 
Late editions 
also read 'sects.' 


Dissidia ha3- 
reses. 


' sects ' 


seditions, ' he- 
resies.' 

(133) 



ft 



114 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



129. YXdOG'O't), *Ward objects to the adjunct 'unknown/ which has been added by the 
Protestant Translators in the fEpistle to the Corinthians, although explanatory of the Apostle's 
meaning. His chief objection seems to be this, that it makes against the use of a strange or foreign 
language in the service of the Popish Church. But, surely, without this addition, St. Paul is suffi- 
ciently explicit in his censure on the Pastor's speaking in a language not understood by the people. 
Immediately after the above quoted passage, he says, (viz. 1 Cor. c. xiv. v. 11) " If I know not the 
meaning of the voice, / shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be 
a barbarian unto me." Again : " If I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my under- 
standing is unfruitful. What is it then? I will pray with the spirit, and I will pray with the understanding 

also Else when thou shalt bless with the spirit, how shall he that occupieth the room of the 

unlearned say, Amen, at the giving of thanks, seeing he under standeth not what thou sayest." The 
language of Origen and Justin Martyr has the same tendency. Jerome says, " every speech which 
is not understood is barbarous." (Thus Ovid, in exile among the Getae, observed, " Barbarus hie 
ego sum, quia non intelligor ulli.") So that the Reformers were fully authorised in drawing 
up the Twenty- Fourth Article against having public prayer, &c. " in a tongue not under- 

STANDED OF THE PEOPLE." 

130. %KvoChoyiCLV. Ward asserts that it may be collected from various places t in holy writ, 
that there existed among the Apostles, " a certain rule and form of faith and doctrine, containing the 
whole platform of the Christian Religion ;" before any of the books of the New Testament were 
committed to writing. However, this is all assertion without proof, for beside the text attached to this 
number, he adduces no authority whatever to be^r him out. The Protestant Translators have render- 
ed the Greek word faithfully by ' proportion,^which is the interpretation given it, in the best Lexicons. 
The obvious meaning of the Apostle is, that in prophesying, they should strictly limit themselves to 
what was revealed to them ; or prophesy according to the measure of the miraculous faith imparted. 
This exposition exactly answers the §^t ?0 » mrewt mentioned ver. 3, and is further confirmed by Origen, 
who says, that «»*xoyi* here does not mean ratio, as the Latins render it, but mensura competens, ' a 
competent measure.' The Rhemists, in their annotations on the passage, quote several || texts to prove 
that a still more comprehensive creed than that now extant was drawn up by the Apostles in conjunc- 
tion. But there is not one of them, from which any inference of the kind can be deduced ; much 
less that the Popish traditions, which Ward contends, were handed down by the church in unbroken 
succession "to the present age," were either antecedent to, or are of equal authority with the Gospels 
themselves. 

131. AyCL7n)$* % Ward says, that this term has been rendered * love ' instead of ' charity/ 

* Errata, page 89. t See English Translation of this number. 

J Proportio. comparatio, similis ratio. Scap. et Constant. 
§ ' Measure of faith/ this and ' proportion of faith,' imply the same thing, viz. " so much of that particular gift 
which God was pleased to bestow on any one." See Locke's Paraph, also Macknight's Com. Vol. 1. p. 442. 

(I Rom. C. xvi. v. 17. 1 Tim. C. vi. v. 20. Gah c. i. v. 6. and Acts, c. xv. v. 6, 

% Errata, page 103. 





OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 115 



by the Protestant Translators ; because "they attribute salvation to faith alone," and that, " they care 
how little charity may sound in the peoples ears." The tenets of the members of the Church of 
England respecting Faith, have been already treated of, and are, moreover, sufficiently known to 
establish Ward's book, ostentatiously called, 'Errata of the Protestant Bible,' as a mingled mass of 
error, misquotation, and calumny. Indeed, where his charges carry malignity and falsehood on the face 
of them, they call for adequately harsh and severe language. It is certain that expressions, too strong, 
cannot be applied to them, when they are discovered to possess properties of that description. 
Thus he observes, in 1 Cor. cap. xiii. for Charity they " eight times say love." It so happens, 
that Ay*m occurs in the original Greek nine times ; but yet never received any other construction than 
'charity,' from the Protestant Translators, whether in their earliest, or latest versions!! 

It is to be apprehended, that, to the perverted application of this term it is owing, that the 
Popish Clergy inculcate the notion of atoning for sins by almsgiving. 

132. ~£^<TflOLTCt, Another . charge of mistranslation is made here by Ward, but of the 
same description with the rest. He alleges, that the Protestants preferred 'dissensions' to 'schisms/ 
as a translation of the word o^o^ar*, " because themselves were afraid to be accounted schismatics." 
Now in the first place, the Greek word is rendered in the Protestant Bible, ' divisions,' which he 
himself allows to be synonymous with schisms. In the next place, as to the dread of being styled 
schismatics; Protestants satisfied. with the rectitude of the principle on which their Reformers acted, 
alike contemn base epithets and unworthy motives as applied to themselves. For, let it be remembered, 
that after the Church of Rome became so corrupt, as to retain little of the spirit of genuine Chris- 
tianity, a continuance in her communion, would have been as sinful, as that which really does consti- 
tute *schism : viz. an unlawful breach of the orders and institutions of the Christian Church, and an 
unwarrantable separation from its communion. In one particular |text where the word itj£«oj**tas occurs, 
the Rhemists evidently departed from the Vulgate translation of it, (scil. scissurlas J when they 
rendered it 'schisms.' If it has been rendered 'division' in subsequent editions of the Rhemish 
Testament, it is a fact which points out as forcibly as any thing can, the positive fallibility of that 
production. 

133. X AipS0*£i£. "For heresy" he says, "as it is in the Greek, they translate {Sects in favour 
of themselves being charged with heresy." A doubt can scarcely be entertained, but that the republishers 
of Ward's book were more culpable in reviving this and similar charges, than he was, in first advancing 
them ; for they could not be ignorant that there existed in most places a coincidence between the Pro- 
testant and Popish Versions of the word ; but, particularly so in the Versions, which were first published. 
However, it is neither by this circumstance, nor by the variance which occurs between the different 
editions of the latter, that the correctness of the former is to be determined, but by the legitimate 
meaning of the word itself. In different §places, the Greek is rendered in the Vulgate by Secta, and in 
the Rhemish Testament by ' Sect.' 

* See numbers 1 to 5, inclusive, 
t 1 Cor. c. xi. v. 1 8. J Secta, haeresis, optio, &c. Scap. 

§ Acts, c. xx'iy. v. 5. c. xxvi. v. 5. and 2 Pet. c. ii. v. 1, &c. 

« 2 



116 



A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


RhemishVersion. 


Beza'sLatinText. 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K. James'sBible 1611 


1 Tim. iii. 6. 


Mi) Neopittov. 


Non neophy- 
tum. 


Not a neo- 
phyte. 


Non novitium. 

Mont. 

non nupcr insi- 
tum. 


Not a c young 
scholar.' 


Not a ' novice.' 

(134) 


Tit. iii. 8. 




bonis operi- 
bus prse- 
esse. 


to excel in good 
works. 


Ut studeant 
bene agendo 
praecedere. 

Mont. 
pulchris ope- 
ribus prcestare. 


* To shew 
forth ' good 
works. 


e To maintain' 
good works* 

(135) 


Jam. i. 13. 


'0 ya% ©so; 

KXKUV. 


Enim Deus 
intentator 
est malorum. 


For God is 
not a tempter 
of evils. 


Nam Deus 
tentara mahs 
non potest. 


God is not 
'tempted with' 
evils. 


For God cannot 
be ' tempted with' 
evil. 

(136) 



134. *NsO<pVTQVm ' Young scholar,' to which Ward objects, is preferable even to ' Neophyte,' 
a term unintelligible to the generality of readers. He says, " Protestants translate it thus, in their 
first Bibles, as though an 'old scholar' could not be a neophyte." This is a most wretched cavil; 
for the term as it stands in those Bibles does not convey its usual signification, neither was it intended 

* Cbrysostom explains this term by rcex«T*#wes newly instructed, i. e. in the Christian Religion. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



117 



that it should, and does not limit, as Ward asserts, the application of it to persons of any one particu- 
lar age or description. But why enter into a vindication of the first Protestant Versions, when the 
reading of the present one, is ' novice?' It would be altogether unnecessary to have said so much, but 
that he has suppressed all mention of the change made, and has, most unwarrantably, censured the 
Protestant Bible for a reading, which it does not possess. 

135. *Ylf)0l$'OL(?@Oil, ' To maintain,' is no misconstruction of this verb; since it signifies that 
as well as 'to preside over,' ' to excel,' &c. 

136. A/TSipOtfO^. tWard grounds a charge on the Protestant Translation of this text, and 
on Beza's exposition of it, of a most malignant nature. His words are, " and what is worse, if worse 
can be, they make God not only a leader of men into temptation, but even the author and worker of 
sin." It is almost unnecessary to observe,' that such an exposition is, and always has been, abhorrent 
from the principles of the Church of England. Scripture itself furnishes a refutation of such 
a charge ; for it will not be said because Herod, Pilate, Judas, &c. put Christ to death, which the 
counsel of God j c determined before to be done/ that God was therefore the author of murder. In like 
manner, although God gave Judas over unto Satan, it does not follow that he was therefore the author 
of J udas's treason. This is an absurdity similar to what Calvinistic Writers fall into, when they treat 
of the doctrine of irreversible decrees, as is most ably shewn in the Bishop of Lincoln's last §publica- 
tion ; but it is one, into which the Divines of the Church of England studiously avoid being betrayed. 

Ward next remarks, " let no man say, that he is tempted of God. Why so ? Because, "say 
the Protestant Translators, God is not tempted with evil. Is this a. good reason ? Nothing less. 
How then ? &c." This curious specimen of argumentation, if it deserve to be so called, he completes 
by drawing a conclusion favourable to the Rhemish Version. But had he been honest enough to 
i subjoin the last clause of the verse, (viz. " neither tempteth he any man.") to those preceding it, and 
l the entire of the next verse ; (viz. " But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, 
I and enticed,") the reader would at once perceive, that the sought for reason is not only explained, but 
assigned. By taking a^aro; in an active sense, Jerome has forced it from its usual acceptation. The 
iRhemists, too, have fallen into an egregious error in translating this text ; for, contrary to what the 
Apostle designed, they have destroyed the antithesis, which occurs in the two concluding sentences, 
and have in consequence committed a most unmeaning tautology. CScumenius, in his comments on 
this very passage, writes to the following effect : ||" God cannot be tempted with evil, &c. And Hen- 
■ tenius, in his remarks on that writer, likewise understands the word *w%g<*ir>j in a passive sense. 

* Antepono. defendo. antecello. Scap. 4 Errata, page 103. 

J Acts, c. iv. v. 28. § See chap. iv. passim. 

|| " Deus enim malis tentari nequit, juxta enm qui dixit (quanquam exfernus sit a nobis, et a fide alienus) divina bcataque 
jatura neque molestias sustinet, neque aliis pr&het.'" 



118 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



Book. Ch.Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Ethemish Version. 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


Oames'sBiblei6n 


1 Pet. ii. 8. 


riET^a axxvSa- 

a7rEt9ams, ei{ I 
xcci iTiS>ja'oi». 


Petra scan- 
dali his qui 
offendunt 
verbo, nec 
credunt in 
quo et positi 
sunt. 


A rock of scan 
dal to them 
that stumble 
at the word ; 
neither do be- 
lieve, wherein 
also they are 

UUl. 


Petra offendi- 
culi, iis qui im- 
pingunt, non 
wrendo sermo- 
rii, immorigeri; 
ad quod etiam 
constituti fue- 

I all In 


unto the which 
thing they 
' were or- 
dained.' 


A rock of offence 

even to them 
which stumble at 
the word, being 

disobedient ; 
whereunto also 
they ' were ap- 

nnintprl ' 

(137) 


Isa. xxvi. 18. 


E» yarp iXaQe- 
cray.iv, xat ITE- 


Concepi- 
mus, et quasi 
parturivirnus, 
et peperimus 

spiritum. 


We have con- 
ceived, and as 
it were travail- 
ed, and brought 
forth the spirit. 




As though we 
had brought 
forth ' wind.' 


We have been 
with child, we 
have been in pain, 
we have as it 
were, brought 
forth ' wind.' 














(138) 



137- E/£ KCtl STB^Yi^OLV, If comparative clearness and intelligibleness be faults, they are, 
in the present instance, attributable to the Protestant Translation ; for most unquestionably the Popish 
Version possesses neither the one quality nor the other. Protestants do not understand this passage to 
signify, that the unbelieving Jews were appointed by God to disobedience, thereby, as *Ward insinu 
ates, making God the author of it : but that being disobedient to the Gospel, they incurred, as Go 
foresaw they would, a liability to punishment by reason of that disobedience, as is concisely ex 
pressed by that eminent Prelate Bishop Tomline. t" These events," (viz the hard-heartedness of th 
Jews, their rejection of the Gospel, &c.) says his Lordship, " did not come to pass, because the 
were foretold, but they were, for the wisest purpose, foretold, because it was foreseen they woul 
happen." 

* Errata, page 104. 
t Refut. of Calvinism, c. iv. page 22g. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



119 



138. *nn '■fTLVSVpitiL* The Protestant Translation of this text is more literal than that 
which it obtains in the Douay Bible, and yet that does not protect it from censure. By ren- 
dering the Hebrew term ' wind,' the meaning of the passage becomes natural and easy ; the 
one part of it explaining the other. We have not been prosperous, says the Prophet; all our pangs 
and throes have not wrought our ease and deliverance from our enemies ; we can only expect 
them from God. %To bring forth wind, is a phrase not unlike those used by §Hosea : viz. to feed 
upon wind," and " to reap wind ;" in other words, to labour in vain. ||Piscator pertinently observes:" 
anxiis nostris consiliis nil profecimus." ^[Bishop Stock's version of this text is the very same as the Pro- 
testant one. He renders nn " wind/' 

Ward, not content with the censures which he has so unsparingly dealt out in treating of the 
foregoing text, thus remarks : " it is the custom of Protestants, in all such cases as this, where the 
more appropriate sense is of God's holy spirit, there to translate wind, as in Psalm cxlvii. v. 1 8.' 
The very words of the Psalmist, who praises God for his power over the elements, convey an 
ample refutation of what Ward says, viz. " He sendeth out his word, and melteth them; he causeth 
the **wind to blow, and the waters flow." Now, by what other means than the 1 wind ' is God here 
said to execute his own commands. Moreover, it is more rational to suppose that a thaw is produced 
by the wind which, " he causeth to blow ;" than that he employs his holy spirit for that purpose. 
In short, the words which follow the disputed passage clearly determine the Popish sense of it as inad- 
missible. For if the people of Judah received the Holy Spirit, they must both have received help, 
and have been able to impart it to others. Neither could they in that case have complained of a con- 
tinuance of their misery, or have said, " we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth, &c." 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


Rhemish Version . 


Beza's Latin Text 


Bps. Bible, 1568. 


K.James'sBibleiGxi 


Joel. ii. 23. 


i'lOTI SClldKlV Vf/M 

roc $(Mp.a/ra, Ef; 


quia dedit 
vobis docto 
rem justitias. 


because he 
hath given you 
a doctor of jus- 
tice. Accord- 
ing to Ward, 
' the doctrine ' 
of justice. 


Heb. rvpi'ib minn. 


... for he hath 
given you 
4 moderate 
rain.' 


for he hath given 
you £ the former 
rain moderately.* 

(139) 



I mm This term implies both ' doctor,' and ' rain as ftMercerus observes, " quia par est 

* Spiritus. ventus. Plantin. Buxt. 
t " The material spirit ; the lxx. in several places, apply it to signify the air in motion." Paekh, 1 
J See Lowth on Isaiah, page 54. § C. viii. v. 7, and C. xv. v. 1. 

|) Vid. Pol. Synops. in loc. 
^ Translation of Isaiah, c. xxvi. v. 18. by the Right Rev. Joseph Stock, Lord Bishop of Waterford. 
** The Hebrew and lxx. Greek of this term, are the same as those in the text connected with the present numben , 

ft Vid. Pol. Synops. in loc. 



120 A SYNOPSIS OF THE CONTROVERTED TEXTS, WITH REMARKS ILLUSTRATIVE 



ratio : ut pluvia e cado mittitur, sic boni doctores Dei donum." In the former acceptation of the Hebrew 
word, Christ ' the teacher of righteousness,' (as inserted in the margin of the ancient Bibles) is promised ; 
and in the latter, the e convenient' or ' just ' or ' right ' quantity of rain necessary to bring the fruits of 
the earth to maturity, would be given. The Hebrew word nvnth rendered ' moderately/ also signifies 
according, to righteousness. When it is consideied that the sacred writers often designate spiritual by 
corporeal objects, it may be readily conceived that the justifying doctrine or Gospel of Christ, is here 
pointed out under the appellation of rain. But in addition to this, the suitableness of 'rain' as a 
translation, is more evident, inasmuch as the Prophet had before denounced a famine in consequence 
of a drought. 

There is a marked inconsistency between Ward's finding the same fault, in the present instance, 
with the Protestant Translators, because they have not translated the Hebrew term mm * teacher ;' 
that He did in a preceding number, for their not having translated it ' image.' In the *one place, 
he asks, " does the Hebrew word force them to this ?" In the tother, he says, " avoiding the name 
of image, they translate another thing, without any necessary pretence either of Hebrew or Greek." 
This fast remark: has been already so fully discussed under its proper Jhead, as to render any further 
observation on it iinnece* ;ary ; and as to his enquiry, if he were sufficiently versant with the Hebrew 
and Greek languages; or indeed with the received English Translation of his own church, he might 
have perceived his question answered by anticipation in the lxxxivth Psalm and in §Isaiah. Pagninus, 
whose authority should carry conviction to the minds of the Popish Doctors, although he takes the 
Hebrew word generally in either sense ; is decidedly of opinion, that in the above mentioned passage 
in Joel, it signifies (pluvia) ' rain.' 



Book. Ch. Ver. 


Orig. Greek. 


Vulgate Text. 


llhemishVersion. 


Beza'sLatinTextjBps. Bible, 1568. 


K. James'sBible 1611 


Isa. xxxiii. 6. 


E> Stc-a^oi? r, 
£Xc! trotp.x y.at 


Et erit fides 
in tempori- 
bus tuis. 

Pagn. 
renders nra* 
Jirmitas. 


And there shall 
be faith in thy 
times. 


Mont. 
renders the 
Hebrew word, 
Veritas. 


a sure stablish- 
ing of thy 
times. 


And wisdom and 
knowledge shall 
be ' the stability 
of thy times.' 

(140) 

















140, |}row. " For a little ambiguity of the Hebrew word," says Ward, "they turn faith into 

* Errata, page 108. t Ibid, page 67. + See number 72. § C. xxx. v. 20. 

|| Firmitas. constitutio firma. Buxt. Status Stabilis. Vitring, Stability, certainty, truth. Pabkh. Bishop 
SiQcK also renders it * stability.' Vid. Trans, of Isaiah. 



OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ENGLISH VERSION OF THEM IN 1611. 



121 



stability." Notwithstanding this, it would appear, from a *note in the margin of the Douay Bible on 
the word ' faith,' that the translators were disposed to favour the latter signification. Lowth, in his 
commentary on this passage, removes all uncertainty about the matter. "The Prophet," he remarks, 
" applies himself to Hezekiah, and tells him that those divine graces of wisdom, knowledge, and the 
fear of God, will be the support of his time and government, and stand him in more stead, than all the 
forces and treasure in which other princes place their confidence." f Another eminent expositor sums 
up the sense of the verse in these words ; " neque vita stabilis, neque firma salus, cuiquam continget, 
nisi per fidem, qux in sapientia, scientiaque certa versatur." Nothing further need be adduced to 
prove, that although a very considerable difference exist, between the Protestant and the Popish 
Versions, the former comes nearest the meaning of the inspired writer. 

The other cavils of Ward, which are softened with an admission that, indeed the Protestant Trans- 
lators rendered several passages so and so, but " not with any ill design •" are designedly passed over 
as being too trilling for serious criticism. 

* Scil. fidelity in performing promises of good things temporal and spiritual, 
t Junius. Vid. Pol. Synops. in loc. 



( IW > 



THE PERPETUAL SACRIFICE OF CHRIST'S BODY AND BLOOD, 



Ward having treated of this subject separately under the above title, it becomes necessary to acconv 
pany him here also step by step, for the purpose of shewing, that the same disputatious spirit, the 
same disregard to truth, and the same disposition to impose on his readers, with which he commenced, 
his work, have accompanied him to its conclusion. 

He charges Protestants with teaching a false doctrine in the twenty-first of thejr thirty-nine articles; 
and, *says he, " because they would have it backed by sacred Scripture, they most egregiously cor- 
rupt the text, Heb. x. 10, by adding to the same two words, not found in the Greek and Latin copies, 
viz. for all," &c. Now, Protestants might readily concede this text, and yet establish their point 
from others, in the writings of St. Paul, as well as in those of St. Peter and St. John. But, as he 
accuses them of corrupting the above text, it is of some consequence to examine, with what justice 
he does so ; for, if it be shewn, that their translation is the most perfect it was capable of receiving, 
then may the doctrine, which relates to the perpetual sacrifice of Christ's body and blood, be enu- 
merated in the catalogue of errors and fabrications of the Popish Church. 

-j- EiponroiZ (t once for all." The omission of the two latter words, cannot warrant the daily obla- 
tion of Christ's body and blood in the Mass, as St. Paul, in a preceding ^chapter, expressly says, 
" nor yet that he should offer himself (ttoXXocxk;) often, &c." And immediately after, " but now (Wa£) 
once, in the end of th& world, hath he appeared, &c." These are passages which directly forbid the. 
Popish interpretation; the Apostle reasons thus : if the repeal offering be necessary, Christ must, 
in that case, have suffered every year, since the fall of Adam. The conclusion is obvious. Moreover, 
must not the pretended sacrifice of the mass import, that remission of sins is not fully obtained for 
us by our Lord's sacrifice on the cross, contrary to another declaration of St. Paul. — Now, where 
remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin 

Although the doctrine of transubstantiation be but of recent date, not having been finally esta- 
blished before the Pontificate of Innocent III. at the commencement of the thirteenth century ; yet 
Ward insists that it was " taught in the primitive Church, and delivered down to the present time, 
by the Apostles, by Apostolical Tradition ;" and to prove this, he produces quotations from the Fathers 
vvho flourished in the first five centuries. It is true, he gives a few detached passages from the works 

* Errata, page 98. 

-)• Semel duntaxat. Steph. Thesaur. Once ; Once for all. Parkh. ttpana.^ opponitur, wxa9' 'n^uv, quovis die expiatorio, 
npuTTttiZ, semel. actus iterationem negans. Schleusn. Lex. in loc. Leigh in his Ckitica Sacba, says, " that the single offer* 
ing was so complete, that its repetition was not only not necessary, but that it would be impious." 

I Heb. c. ix. v. 25, 26. § Ibid. c. x. v. 18. 



THE PERPETUAL SACRIFICE OF, &c. 123 

of some of the most eminent of them, but so unfairly, so distorted and mutilated, and so jumbled 
together, that they are made to convey a meaning the very opposite to the one intended. Among his 
selections, one, from the writings of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, lays claim to superior notice, owing to the 
excellent specimen which it affords of his ability in the art of garbling, and mutilating passages. He 
not only suppresses sentences, but entire paragraphs, and uniting those which are whole pages asun- 
der, he gives them the appearance of a continuous connection. This is strikingly illustrated in the 
quotation alluded to, which is made up of two distinct parts of St. Cyril's fourth Catechesis on the 
divine mysteries. The reader cannot avoid expressing his astonishment at the ingenious manner 
in which this patchwork business is completed, and the plausibility with which it is attempted to be 
palmed on the public, as an unbroken narrative. As the whole matter exhibits such a compound 
of fraud and deception, as is not, perhaps, easily to be met with, except in the Jesuitical *production of 
Doctor Milner, it is hoped that its transcription will need no apology. " fSince, then, Christ de- 
clared and told us of the bread, this is my body, who shall venture any longer to raise a doubt ? 
And since he affirmed and said, this is my blood, who shall doubt, saying this is not his blood ? 
He once changed water into wine at Cana in Galilee, by his own power, and is he not to be believed, 
when he changes wine into blood? Being called to a corporeal wedding, he wrought this unexpected 
miracle, and shall he not much rather be acknowledged, when giving to the children of the bride- 
chamber, the fruition of his body and his blood. So, then, with all fulness of persuasion, let us par- 
take |as of the body and blood of Christ. (Ward, by suppressing the word * as " in this last clause, 
gives the sentence an interpretation favourable to transubstantiation, which, in its unmutilated state, 
it does not bear.) For in the type of the bread, the body is given thee, and in the type of the wine 
the blood is given thee, that £hou mayest become, by taking the body and blood of Christ, one in. 
body and in blood with him. Thus we also become bearers of Christ, his body and blood being con- 
veyed into our members." Ward carries his reader thus far, after having presented him, not with a 
translation like that just quoted, which so fully expresses the Father's sentiments ; but with one, in 
every respect, weak and imperfect. Besides, instead of giving the sentences which immediately 
follow, and on which the sense of all the preceding ones rests ; he subjoins a passage from a different 
part of the same Catechesis, and thus perverts the original to advocate the doctrine of the * Perpetual 
Sacrifice,' contrary to its letter and spirit, and to the meaning of its Author. 

* Inquiry into certain Vulgar Opinions. It is not hazarding too much to say, that that work next to the Errata, 
has contributed more than all the other late productions of the Popish press, to add to the delusion under which the lettered 
part of the Irish Papists lie. Mr. Le Mesurier, in his treatise on the Eucharist, has, by bringing to light a fraud practised by 
Doctor Milner, similar to the one complained of here, not only impeached, but absolutely blasted the credit of his mischievous 
performance. Columbanus tells a curious anecdote of Doctor Milner. " I once asked the Bishop of Castibala," says that 
sensible writer, " how he had nerves strong enough to refer, in his Winchester, for the history of king Arthur, to Gildas, who 
never once mentions his name. He replied, Gildas certainly does mention him ? We searched Gale's edition, but in vain !! " 
This carries with it its own comment. See Columbanus, ad Hibernos, Letter iii. p. 50, 

f Errata, page 101. 

+ <yj-£ peru wajij; Tr^joipo^a;, 'fiS o-w/^aro; x«i ai^aTos p.na.\ap$cu/unv xp^- Ward renders it " wherefore, full of certainty, 
let us receive the Body and Blood of Christ :" and thus omits the word as, which corresponds with the original 

R 2 



124 



ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



The translation, which Ward should have given, is in the left hand column, and is the regular 
continuation of the preceding extract, commencing with its last sentence. The one he has given is 
put in the other column in italics, that his dishonesty, may, by the contrast, be the better exposed. 



* <f Thus we also become bearers of Christ, 
his body and his blood being conveyed into our 
members, and thus, as the blessed Peter says, we 
become partakers of the divine nature. Formerly, 
Christ discoursing with the Jews said, ' unless 
you eat my Flesh, and drink my blood, ye have 
no life in you.' (John vi. 53.) But they not 
hearing (or not understanding) these things 
which were spoken spiritually, went back, 
thinking that lie invited them to an eating of 

HIS FLESH, &C.'* 



" Thus we also become Christophers, that is, 
Bearers of Christ, receiving his Body and Blood 
into us." Ward stops here, and subjoins what 
follows, as the genuine translation of the 
Greek ! ! " Do not therefore look on it as mere 
bread only, or bare wine; for as God him- 
self has said, it is the Body and Bh.od of Christ. 
Notwithstanding, therefore, the information of 
sense, let faith confrm thee ; and do not judge oj 
the thing by the taste, but rather take it jor most 
certain by faith, without the least doubt, that his 
Body and Blood are given thee. When you come 
to communion, do not come holding both the palms 
of your hands open, nor your fingers spread ; but 
let your left hand be as it were at rest under the 
right, tinto which you are to receive so great 
a King: and in the hollow of your hand take tks 
body of Christ, saying, Amen." 



ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 

It was not at first intended to take any notice of the last page of Ward's book, which contains what 
is called, *'* A Vindication of the Roman Catholics, shewing their abhorrence of certain tenets 
commonly laid at their door as it was supposed it might have been published without the concur- 
rence of the Popish Clergy, and that they themselves would scarcely venture to disown principles in 
one part of a work, which from the patronage they have given it, may be said to be explicitly ac- 

* "ofTw yac x«( p££/fi>pog o» ywofjidia. t» trauctros ctVT» y.ca t» cctptcros e»{ to. ■njurt^a. ava^o/j.cfa fj.ih/i' ouru xxtx tov fuzxapov ETtT^ov foiaj 
xnvutoi (pvaiiis yiiofAiQa. Uotb toi; Ia^aicj; $ta7\iyoptvo$ tfayiv, tecs fm tyayr,7t pa T'//v au.(x.u, xui nti-nrt fta to atjxet, ex £%er£ ?unt it 'icw- 

To*;, txtWi far) axr,xooT£S I1NETMATIK&2 rav heya^aiuiv, crxavSahtcSi/Tic, unrthQcii si; ice vmew, »oyxi£om{ on trci^Mlpciyicci airs ?T|OTpw£- 

■rcti. Cyril, Cateches. Mystagog. iv. p. 20,3. 

f It is odd enough that the Popish doctors would allow a passage setting forth an usage of the primitive Church to continue 
in a work which has had their revision, inasmuch as that usage is discontinued by their Church. 



ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



128 



knowledged by them in another. But, in consequence of this very vindication having found its way 
into a small *tract lately published in the city of Cork, it becomes, in a manner, entitled to distinct 
consideration. The respectability, not less than the learning of the gentleman, under the sanction 
of whose name it comes recommended to the public, as well as the circumstance of his being a 
member of the established Church, impart to it some pretensions to candour and truth, which it will 
be forthwith necessary to investigate. 

Before, however, he enters into an examination of a few of the leading articles, the author 
cannot avoid observing, that it has been the invariable and constant practice, of late years, with the 
Popish Clergy, to take advantage of that misjudged liberality which has sprung up among several 
members of the Church of England, by making them instrumental in the propagation of opinions 
which, however specious in appearance, are found on examination to be vague and indefinite. It is 
likewise observable, that two of the most obnoxious tenets with which the Popish Clergy are charge- 
able, viz ' exclusive salvation,' and, £ that no faith is to be kept with those who are without the pale 
of their church,' are not enumerated among the articles of the Vindication. When it is considered 
how unimportant several of those are, which they so formally renounce, it is not a little surprising, 
that they should pass these over in silence ; for as these tenets are imputed to them, they are surely 
entitled to the like notice with the rest. Can any other conclusion, then, be drawn, than that they 
hold these in the same unlimited sense, in which they were laid down by the last General Council of 
Trent? Unquestionably not. And notwithstanding that tan elaborate production has been expressly 
written for the purpose of removing so uncharitable, or to use a favourite term of its author, so "un- 
kindly " an imputation, an opposite opinion cannot be entertained, until a council of equally com- 
petent authority, cancels its decrees. 

The learned author, in the publication just mentioned, has, with modest reserve, withheld his 
name from the public, and, in the true spirit of Christian charity, has undertaken to prove, that the 
tenet of exclusive salvation is not imputable to the Popish Church. He is, however, far from esta- 
blishing his point; for having set out on a wrong principle, his many judicious observations and con- 
clusive arguments are consequently thrown away. 

Because * Doctor Milner has,, with some colour, to be sure, of liberality, called a Protestant 
gentleman a " Christian ;" the Answerer observes that in this appellation there is " an emphatic recog- 
nition both of the Christianity and the sal ^ability of the party addressed :" and because it is stated in 
a posthumous publication of a Doctor Hawarden, that " wilfulness" alone constitutes heresy and 
schism ; i. e. when error against faith, and separation from the Catholic communion are involuntary, 
and proceed from invincible ignorance, they cannot be sinful ; §he concludes, that according to Doctor 
H. " they who in appearance are heretics, or schismatics, may in realiiy be good men; of course 
objects of God's favour here, and heirs hereafter of his everlasting promises." But experience, and 

* Synthetical Arrangement of Texts, selected from the Douay^ Translation of the New Testament, ly Thomas 
Newenham, Esq. — This gentleman informs his readers, that the renunciatory articles which he has taken from the fourth edition 
of Ward's Errata, are published by him with the approbation of the Roman Catholic prelates of Ireland. 

f Ah Answer to the Right Hon. P. Duigenan's two great arguments against Popish Enfranchisement, Dublin, 1810, 
{ Inquiry, p. 48. § Answer, p. 26. 



126 



AB JURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



the evidence of facts, the sentiments of the Church of Rome, and the language of its divines, forbid 
such a conclusion to be drawn. Indeed, it may be proved from the internal evidence, which, the docu- 
ments he refers to, affords, that this assumption is founded in error. 

In the first place, could Doctor Miluer, when he addressed his Wexford correspondent, in an 
epistolary way, have done less than use the courtesy above alluded to ? Could he have so far departed 
from the established rules of politeness, or have so much disregarded the dictates of common sense, 
as to have spoken differently to the person, with whom he remonstrated in a friendly manner, on the 
impropriety of duelling ? If he could not, then the passage in Doctor M.'s letter, is but a weak proof 
either of his own liberal views in this particular, or of his church's disavowal of the tenet imputed to it. 
Besides, it is not quite clear that Doctor M. will relish this sturdy kind of argument, whereby he is 
pressed with consequences drawn from his own principles. Had Doctor M. in no other part of his 
writings given an opinion on this subject, the individual passage, which the Answerer has selected 
from his letter, might, it is true, bear the interpretation assigned to it ; but when, to use his own 
words, *" he has repeatedly published, that he would rather lose his life, than be instrumental in 
giving power, or even influence, to an uncatholic Government, over any part of the Catholic Church 
there is little doubt, that, when he applied the term " Christian " to a Protestant gentleman, he 
used it in the ambiguous manner of the schoolmen, if he intended it should have any meaning at all. The 
Answerer must likewise know, that Doctor Milner has c repeatedly ' called our venerable and truly 
religious Monarch, an UNCATHOLIC KING. In doing so, he most unequivocally recognises 
the exclusive doctrine. And that the reader may be convinced of this, it is necessary merely to refer 
to the arrogant pretensions which he has put forward, in a published sermon, in behalf of the Church 
of Rome, maintaining it to be the -\only true church. The very extract made from it, at the conclu- 
sion of the Preface to this work, justifies the opinion, that he did not look beyond the pale of his 
jown church, when he drew the distinction between such revealed truths as related to the nature and 
authority of the church, and those {fundamental ones contained in the Apostle's creed. In his letters 
to Doctor Sturges, observes the § Answerer, he vindicates certain important doctrines of the Church of 
England, against Bishop Hoadly and his followers, and declares his persuasion, that true orthodox 
churchmen would prefer a Roman Catholic to a Hoadlyite. Doctor Milner is a very subtle adversary, 
and being well aware of the 'vantage ground, which he would possess, if, in his controversy with 
Doctor Sturges, he took his stand in the ranks of the Protestant Clergy, by a skilful manoeuvre, he 
comes over to them for a while, and wields their weapons to the discomfiture of his opponent. Such 
advocacy the Divines of the Church of England have never acknowledged, indeed never can. One 
,andall exclaim, haud tali auxilio. And as to his persuasion, that orthodox churchmen would prefer a 

* Appendix to Instructions addressed to the English Catholics, p. 6. 
t If the Romish church be the only true church, by which is meant the only church truly christian, it must follow that the 
members of that church, are the only true Christians. It remains, therefore, for Dr. Milner to explain what he means by Chris- 
tians, that are not true Christians ; in other words, Christians that are not Christians. In this last-named class of Christians, it 
is manifest that Dr. Milner's liberality has placed the Protestant gentleman. 

\ Answer, p. 18. 
§ See Answer, Note 3, p. 53. 



ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



127 



Papist to a Hoadlylte, it may be asked, what mark of liberality is there in his saying so ? It is an 
ingenious way of complimenting himself, but nothing more. 

Next, as to the passages which have been quoted by the Answerer from Doctor Ha warden's work, 
it might be said, he gave them the interpretation, which they were designed to bear, if he could shew, 
that that writer understood the adjunct ' Catholic,' in its genuine signification, viz. universal', and 
that the Catholic Church was considered by him to include the aggregate of all particular churches, 
in which Catholic verities are inculcated ; and lastly, that he did not confine it to that branch of the 
Christian Church called Roman. But, until he does so, the testimony adduced by him is insufficient 
to establish his point. If the Answerer believes the case to be, as he represents it, it can be for no 
more solid reason than that he wishes it ; but, surely, he cannot expect that others will agree with 
him in opinion, on such slight grounds. As a proof of the fallacy of his reasoning, it will suffice to 
state, what he says on the subject of baptism. Doctor Hawarden, *says he, holds that sacrament as 
generally necessary to salvation ; that is, that it is not indispensable, and ivithout exception ; while 
Archbishop Seeker, in treating of the same subject, uses terms exactly similar. " If, therefore," 
continues he, " we are satisfied with that kindly interpretation, by which our own Church is justified 
in the one case ; how, in common consistency, shall we reject the charitable construction, which Dr. 
H. gives to the sentiment of the R. C. Church in the other?" Here is his error, in supposing, from 
the similarity which exists between the exposition of these divines, that, therefore, each deemed the 
ibaptism conferred by the other, valid. It may be affirmed of the Archbishop ; but, most certainly, 
not of Doetor H. for, though he has not expressed himself explicitly on the subject, yet there are 
not wanting other and weightier authorities to ascertain in what light the Popish Church views the 
sacraments, as they are administered by the Church of England. The learned fWard, as Doctor 
Milrrer calls him, says, that Protestants have deprived the two sacraments, which they retain, of " all 
grace, virtue, and efficacy ; making them no more than poor and beggarly elements, like those of the 
Jewish law." Here is Ward, versus Hawarden. The open declaration of the one, is opposed to the 
guarded exposition of the other ; in short, a downright asseveration is made by Ward, while a kindly 
interpretation must be applied to the words of Doctor H. to elicit the Answerers meaning. It may, 
therefore, be fairly presumed, that when Doctor H. admitted the possibility of some being saved, who 
are not of the (Roman) Catholic communion; he made his exception solely in favour of the martyrs, 
who had no opportunity of receiving baptism, or. of Catechumens who died before it could be admi- 
nistered, or of such as were unavoidably mistaken about, or invincibly ignorant of the necessity of 
its being administered. But if, to persons of this description alone, the possibility of salvation can, 
in the opinion of Doctor H. be extended beyond the pale of the Romish Church, then it still remains 
to be shewn how the non-existence of ' exclusive salvation,' as a tenet of the Church of Rome, is 
proved by the extracts from his writings, which are given in the Answer. 

But to return to Dr. Milner ; as much stress is laid on a single passage in his letter, which, probably, 



* Answeh, p. 23. 



f See Eerata, p. 55. and No. 44 of this work. 



128 ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 

like the *unfortunate note written by him to Mr. Ponsonby, was sketched in a hasty manner, the 
effusion of the moment, and not originally intended to meet'the public eye, it is proper to state the 
opinion he has given of an author, compared with whose work the Errata is charity itself, and then 
to present a summary of the work itself, that the reader may be further enabled to judge, whether he 
be entitled to the credit given him by the Answerer, or not. 

An exposition of the prophecies contained in the Apocalypse, was first published in a clandestine 
manner, some thirty years back, under the fictitious title of Pastorini ; a name which continued to 
impose on the literary world, while the real author lived. When concealment became no longer 
necessary, f Doctor Milner announces to the public, that the work in question, was not the production 
of an Italian, as was supposed, but of " the late Rev. C. Walmesley, B. D. V. A. a most mild and 
enlightened Christian," and that " it consists neither of folly, nor of blasphemy, but of a most inge- 
nious and learned exposition of the book of Revelations." This mild and enlightened expositor tells 
his readers, that the fallen star mentioned in Rev. ix. ], is emblematical of Luther's apostacy ; that 
while the keys of heaven were committed to Peter, to Luther was given the key of the bottomless pit, 
or hell, and that on Luther's opening the pit, a thick smoke, that is, " a strong spirit of seduction, 
which was hatched in hell, burst out ;" that from the smoke, was produced a swarm of locusts, 
who are the Reformers ; that some of the locusts (v. 10) had tails like scorpions, with stings in them; 
t( which allegory describes emphatically, the implacable enmity of Protestants to those of the \Catholic 
communion ;" and finally, that Protestants are to be extirpated in the year 1825 or 1826 ! However, 
M before the Saviour of mankind, who only waits the return of his strayed sheep, is forced to strike ; 
Protestants are conjured to lay down all animosity, against their ancient mother, to think of reconcilia- 
tion, and ask to be received again into her bosom." What will the Answerer say to this ? Does not 
every line, every word of it breathe the spirit of that doctrine, which he has so confidently stated to 
be extinct ? And do not the encomiums bestowed on the author, and on his work by Doctor Milner, 
afford incontestable evidence, that the liberal interpretation given tothe passage quoted from Doctor M.'s 
letter, to his Protestant correspondent in Wexford, is more than it can strictly bear ? 

The § Answerer next refers to the tenth chapter of the catechism, drawn up by a former Titular 
Archbishop of Cashel, and at present taught in the Popish Church, as fully establishing what he has 
been labouring to evince from the writings of Hawarden and Milner. The first question, which he 
cites from it, is this ; ||" Are all obliged to be of the true church ?" Answer ; yes, no one can be saved 

* Doctor Milner's political principles, are not of a more protean cast than his religious ones. For if the changeableness of 
the former has been exemplified in his conduct respecting the Veto, the unsteadiness of the latter can be instanced in the case 
of the Rev. Doctor Lingard, P. P. This gentleman, in one of his publications, advanced some points, which were so offensive 
to Doctor Milner, and appeared to bim to be of so heretical a nature, that he absolutely denounced him to his ordinary, and 
stigmatized him as deserving the severest lash of ecclesiastical censure. When Doctor L. heard of the intended rigours, and 
of the cause for which they were to be imposed, he enclosed Doctor Milner some extracts from a former thesis of bis, in which 
the same sentiments were expressed, and nearly the same words were used, as those for which Doctor M. would now visit on him 
the vengeance of the Church ! 

' f Inquiry, page 83. 
+ Is the term Catholic understood here in the sense assigned to it by the Answerer ? 
§ Note 3, p. 56. H Butler's Catechism, page 17. 



ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



129 



out of it. f I believe, says the Answerer, there is not in the whole catechism, any thing more severe 
than this assertion. But mark what follows :' Will strict honesty to every one, and moral good works, 
ensure salvation, whatever church or religion one professes ? No, unless such good works be enliven- 
ed by faith, which worketh by charity. c Instead of any revolting anathema,' he concludes " we 
have here nothing, but the prime principle of practical Christianity." A more erroneous conclusion 
he could not arrive at, as the full import of these questions and answers cannot be collected by taking 
them abstractedly, as he has done, but as they stand in connexion with those which precede and follow. 
In the beginning of the xith chapter, it is asked ; " why is the church called Roman f Answer. Because 
the visible head of the Church is Bishop of Rome," that is, as is stated immediately after, <e the Pope, 
who is Christ's Vicar on earth, &c. while just before, it is said to be an additional mark of the unity 
of the church, that it is placed under that one visible head. Here then, it is determined, as clearly as 
any thing can, that the true, and only church, spoken of is Roman ; that the Holy and Apostolical 
Church is Roman -, and, consequently, that what is meant, by the true church, in the catechism, does 
not take in, in its " charitable embracement," alldenominations of Christians ; but such only as acknow- 
ledge the bishop of Rome, as its supreme head. It is not, however, to Butler's Catechism alone, that 
the opinion is confined, " that no one can be saved out of the Roman Catholic Church," as in Dr. 
Troy's *Catechism published in Dublin, in 1805, and in fthat drawn up for the use of the French 
churches, and approved of by the present bishop of Rome ; and in the JPapal Allocution delivered 
in October 1 804 ; and in the §oath of a Popish priest ; and in the jjbull of Pope Pius V. issued in 
1569, against Queen Elizabeth ; not to speak of the decision of the council of Trent, which has not 

* Q — What do you mean by the true church ? A. — The congregation of the faithful under one visible head on earth. 
Q. — Is there but one true church ? A. — Although there be many sects, there is but one true religion, and one true church. 
Q. — Why is there but one true church ? A. — Because there is but one true God. 
Q. — How do you call the true church ? A. — The Roman Catholic Church, 
q. — Are all obliged to be of the true church ? A.- — Yes. 

q. — Why are all obliged to be of the true church ? ^.—Because no one can le saved out of it. 

Q. — Is it easy to know the true church ? A. — It is, the same Providence, which established it, has made it visible to all, 

q. — How is the true church visible ? A. — By certain distinguishing characters. 

<J). — Which are they ? A. — The true church is one, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolical. 

q. — Has the Roman Catholic Church the marks of the true church ? A. — She has, and SHE ALONE, &a &c. 

f The French Catechism, translated by D. Bogue, London, 1807, contains the following questioni and answers. 
Q. — What do you understand by the words I believe the Church ? 

A. — That the Church may always continue, that all it teaches must be believed, and that to obtain eternal life, we must live 
and die in its bosom. 

q. — Why are these articles, the communion of saints, the remission of sins, and life everlasting, placed after this, I believe in 
the Holy Catholic Church ? 

A. — To shew that there is neither holiness, nor remission of sins, nor consequently any salvation, or eternal life, out of the 
(Roman) Catholic Church. 

% The Roman Catholic Church is the only ark of salvation. 

§ " This true catholic (soil. Roman) faith, out of which no one can be safe, (extra qttata nerao salvuj esse potest) whicfe, 
at present I freely profess, &c." Po»tipic. Rom. 

i! " No salvation out of the Church of Rome." 
■ 



AB JURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



been yet reversed ; nor of what has no less weight, in Ireland at least, the authority of *Ward; the 
exclusive doctrine is openly and unequivocally declared. 

If additional evidence^ be wanting to carry conviction to the mind of the benevolent and learned 
author of the Answer, that the odious tenet imputed to the Popish Church, is still maintained by it, 
let him only consult the unbigoted creed to which Doctor Coppinger subscribes in his letter to the 
Dublin Society. He will there see it frankly avowed, that it is an unbending rule of the Church of 
Rome, that its members should not join in religious worship with those of any other communion, 
and that the existing Pontiff deems this ordinance as obligatory as Benedict XIV. did in his day. 
For, why authoritatively enforce so stern an inhibition, if the C hurch of Rome considered those of 
a different communion, f " objects of God's favour here, and heirs hereafter of his everlasting pro- 
mises." 

One of the last observations made by the Anmertr, is, that it is undeniable, that there are 
more t" religious congenialities " between Protestants and Romanists, than between the former and 
the misguided followers of Calvin, who, for a century past, have been tolerated without injury. The 
case, notwithstanding, cannot be considered analogous ; for, although more points of contact were dis- 
covered on the one side than on the other; and although §Mosheim, whose authority he alludes to, 
says, the decline of the dissenting interest in England is chiefly to be attributed to the lenity and 

* Ward asks, " whether salvation can be had in a church without pastors V Errata, page 97. He puts this question, 
supposing that he had demonstrated that every Protestant Church is without pastors. One of the Reasons, too, assigned, why a 
Roman Catholic cannot conform to the Protestant religion, (See Grounds' of the Catholic Doctrine, Reason XI. Wogan, Dub- 
lin,) is this, " Because, even in the judgment of Protestants, we must be on the safer side. They allow that our Church does not err in 
fundamentals, that she is a part, at least, of the Church of Christ ; that we have ordinary mission, succession, and orders, from the 
Apostles of Christ j they all allow that there is salvation in our communion ; and consequently that our Church wants nothing 
necessary to salvation. We can allow them nothing of it at all, without doing wrong to truth and our own consciences, &c." It ends 
thus : " In fine, they (scil. Protestants) have no share in the promise of Christ's heavenly kingdom (excepting in the cases of invin- 
cille ignorance), from which the Scriptures, in so many places, exclude heretics and schismatics." 

t Answer, page 26. 

♦ Some sensible remarks occur in the British Review, (No. 1, page 215,) which may be here thought appli- 
cable. " We cannot agree," says the Reviewer, " with those who would persuade us, that the Church of Eng- 
land, in all inward and vital principles of Christian faith and morals, agrees better with the Church of Rome, than with the 
Lutheran or Calvinistic communions." Again: " But it appears to us very plain; that however the Calvinist and the Lutheran 
ma) differ with us concerning the ceremonies and discipline of the Church, in some one or two articles of doctrine, yet that they 
substantially agree with us in a confession of the same faith. Indeed, many of their ablest expounders and professors have dis- 
tinctly and openly declared their concurrence in the doctrines of the Thirty-Nine Articles." It is added, also, that " Doctor 
Horsiey was of opinion that the peculiarities of Calvinism affect not the essentials of Christianity, and lamented the decline of it 
among the dissenters ; that he lamented, also, as must every honest Churchman, the disorderly fanaticism of the Methodists, and 
their attachment to uncommissioned, unauthorized teachers." In this opinion the Reviewer concurs, although he says, " he is not 
blind to the errors of sectarism," and is fully aware that the various peculiarities " of the Calvinistic creed, with the inward lights, 
&nu inspired assurances of salvation, and other like tenets of the Methodists, are far, very far, from being consistent with the 
grave and humble simplicity of our Church." He then proceeds (see pp. 216, 217) to notice the apparent agreement; but vitai 
c-isagreement, of the Romish and the Established Church. 

§ Eccl, Hist. vol. vi. p. 33. 



ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



131 



moderation of Protestant Rulers ; yet, experience and the language of history, do not warrant him 
in saying, that the decay of Popery would result from the most enlarged enfranchisement of its pro- 
fessors, or that were " *irritating circumstances removed ; our resembling practices could not fail to 
make a kindly and ever-growing impression." 

Archbishop Wake, than whom no man ever breathed more of the spirit of peace, sought a recon- 
ciliation between the Church of England and the Gallican Church ; and, had the doctors of the 
Sorbonne been like him, sincere in their desire to attain that great object, they would have met him 
on equal terms. But they would not tconcede an iota ; and, without concession, he pronounced 
an union with them impracticable. 

The Answerer concludes with saying, that from the course of clerical education pursued at May- 
nooth, the principles which actuate the Roman Catholic Church in this country, respecting ^Papal 
supremacy, can be seen to the very centre. Is it possible, he can imagine, that his readers will be- 
lieve all this and discredit the testimony of their senses ; or can he suppose that the students at the 
College there can avoid being imbued with ultramontane notions, merely because it is whispered 
to them in a preliminary note to one of their class books, which is fraught with ultramontanism, — the 
Gallican Church says so and so, or teaches contrary doctrine, adhere to it ? This is truly childish ; 
indeed, whoever reflects with what pertinacity the Romanists refuse the ^nomination of their bishops 

* Answer, p. 44. 

f If the French Divines were thus inflexible, is it natural to suppose, that any extension of political power to the Irish 
Romanists, whose clergy are so many degrees below those of the refined age of Louis XIV. would tend to produce this identity of 
views, this amalgamation of interests, but, above all, this approximation of religious creeds, which the learned Answerer so 
fondly anticipates ? For, if Popish Divines be believed, semper eadern is peculiarly characteristic of their Church, — a principle 
which must serve as a perpetual bar to the wished-for change of sentiment in its votaries. The writer of these remarks wishes it 
to be distinctly understood, that he does not attempt to discuss the expediency, or inexpediency, of the enfranchisement of his 
Popish brethren ; but merely to state, that that measure does not appear to him calculated to bring about those happy conse- 
quences which have been before enumerated. He conceives he has proved to demonstration, that the exclusive doctrine, so far 
from being inoperative, is active in its influence on the members of the Popish communion. He laments to say that while it 
continues so, he cannot console himself with the hope, that any political arrangement can tend to conciliate their affections to those 
of the Established Church. 

J The passage in Veron's Rule, to which the cautionary note is attached, ends thus : " adeoque Pontificem etiam extra 
concilium generale, circa dubiam aliquam fidei questionem infallibiliter definire." Tract. Gen. p. 22. Dub. 1796. Again it 
is remarked in the same tract, " Non posse errare Pontificem (seu Concilium Generale) in iis praeceptis, qua; toti ecclesise pra- 
scribuntur." Ibid. p. 371- Now, reader, these are some of the extracts, which, the Answerer says, were he to make, "Pro- 
testants would read with surprise." 

Doctor Troy says, " the Pope is infallible, when his decrees and decisions are tacitly assented to, or not differed from by 
the majority of bishops governing the church. Pastor. Letter. Dublin, 1793. Doctor Milner expresses himself thus: 
*' There is not a single prelate in England or Ireland, who is not firmly resolved to reject the four articles commonly called the 
liberties of the Church of France." Supplem. to a Pastoral Letter, p. 39. It should be remembered, that the Jirst 
relates to the supremacy, and the fourth to the infallibility of the Pope. Now can it for a moment be imagined, that the men who 
speak thus have not influence, over the College of Maynooth, sufficient to have the ultramontane doctrine engrafted on its system of 
education ? 

§ Gibbon says, " when the chair of St. Peter was disputed by Symmachus and Laurence, they appeared at his summons 
before the tribunal of an Arian Monarch, and he (Theodoric) confirmed the election of the most worthy, &c." Decl. and Fall 
of the Roman Empire, vol. vii, page 38. 

i S2 



132 



ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



to a Protestant Monarch ; while they have, on historic record, express mention of Avian Emperors 
appointing their very Popes, without injury to their succession, cannot credit any such thing. As to 
the introduction of Veron's rule of faith into the volume of theological tracts, published for the use 
of Maynooth College, it is sufficient to observe that that very tract so much recommended for its mild- 
ness, presents as rigid an expositfon of the tenets of the Church of Rome, and favours as high 
notions of the Pope's infallibility, as were ever entertained by that imperious Pontiff, Gregory the Vllth. 
In short, the Answerer describes things as they ought to be, and not as they are ; and as he views 
them through the medium of a prejudiced, yet unquestionably, of a benevolent mind, his report neces- 
sarily receives a wrong bias. 

Having dismissed this subject, it is now fit to proceed to the examination of those articles which 
Mr. Newenham has annexed to his Synthetical Arrangement of texts. 

The first article runs thus : " Cursed is he that commits idolatry, that prays to images or relics, 
or worships them for God." 

This is a grand argument with Romanists that they do not worship or honour images as God. 
In like manner, idolatry is defined in the Trent Catechism, to be, " *if idols or images are worship- 
ped as.God.'' Here a single remark will suffice, that however such men as Doctor Milner may 
be able to preserve that subtile distinction necessary to be drawn for the purpose of avoiding a sinful 
act ; it is not the case, nor can it be expected, that the uninstructed mind will carry its thoughts be- 
yond the material object to which its devotion is directed. The use of images, even as a medium 
through which God should be worshipped, is therefore objectionable ; for admitting that the adoration 
thus offered is really paid him, yet this is only such an excuse as an heathen might make.. But images 
are not the only object of worship ; since the very material, substantial cross is addressed in prayer, 
as is set forth in the Romish Ritual. 

O crux ave spes unica, 
In hac triumphi loria ; 
JPiis adauge gratiam, 
Reisque dele crimina. 

Here no mistake can be made, as there is nothing equivocal in the form of words used. Indeed, 
Christ himself could not be invoked for more than an increase of grace and the remission of sins. 

In the Roman Missal, the wood is entreated to save those who are assembled to offer it praise. 
Part of the service for the fourteenth of September, is as follows, f** sweet wood, bearing the sweet 
nails, bearing the sweet burthen, save this multitude," &c. A grosser, or a more deliberate act of 
idolatry, could not be committed, than they are guilty of, who join in the celebration of this anthem. 
Of the same description is that mentioned in the Preservative against Popery, in the case of Imbert and 
the officiating priest. At the exaltation of the cross, the latter desired the people to worship the cross 
itself, while the former insisted on the contrary. ° Jesus Christ, not the wood," said Imbert. H No I 

* Si idola et imagines tanquaro Deus colantur. f Vid. Fest. die xivta. Septembris, p. 500. 



Hail cross ! our hope to thee we call, 
In this triumphant festival ; 
Grant to the just increase of grace, 
And every sinner's crimes efface. 



ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



183 



No ! the wood, the wood,'' (ecce lignum adoremus) " behold the wood, let us adore it,'' Sic. replied 
the Cure. To which Imbert subjoined, *" on which the Saviour of the world hung ; come, let us 
adore this Saviour of the world." For this addition, the unfortunate Imbert was prosecuted, degra- 
ded without a trial, and menaced with a dungeon. 

Thus it appears, that even what frepresents the real cross is made the subject of (Latria) 
divine adoration, and that it is addressed in terms which can only be properly directed to the Supreme 
Being. The legend relative to the discovery of the true cross will be found, in Section XI. No. 73, de- 
tailed at full length. It need only be added, that so much wood has been shewn, as having been 
part of the real cross, that to keep up the imposture, it was necessary to have it supposed, that the 
marvellous wood possessed a power of reproduction, not unlike Fortunatus's purse, and that its sub- 
stance, although suffering constant diminution, still continued whole and unimpaired. 

Second Article. " Cursed is every goddess worshipper, that believes the Virgin Mary 
to be more than a creature ; that honours her, worships her, or puts his trust in her more than in 
God, and believes her above her son, or that she can in any thing command him." 

Since Romanists disclaim the blasphemous address, jure matris impera redemptori, according 
to which they desire the Virgin Mary by virtue of her authority as a mother to command her son, 
let them receive due credit for it. The direct inference, however, from the declaration, that she is not 
honoured, worshipped or confided in, more than God, is, that she may receive equal homage with him. 
Indeed this very inference is warranted by Doctor Milner, as in his +pastoral letter he recommends 
t( a special devotion to the Virgin Mary." When she is besought, to " loose the bonds of the guilty," 
to " give sight to the blind," to " drive away evils ;" &c. can it be said that the great God himself 
could receive superior adoration ? In the common office for her, the following ^hyrnn occurs : 

. u The sinner's bonds unbind, 
Our evils drive away, 
Bring light unto the blind, 

For grace and blessings pray," &c„ 

In Advent she is thus invoked ; "jjmay the Virgin Mary with her pious son bless us." And 

* The Popish service for Good Friday, as it stands in the Missal, can leave no doubt on the mind of its having an idolatrous 
tendency. The account given of it is as follows : " The morning prayers being finished, the priest receives from the deacon a 
cross, prepared on the altar for that purpose. He uncovers it a little at the top, turning his face to the people, and begins this Anti- 
phona, " behold the wood of the cross ;" the people then join, saying, " come let us adore," at which all but the priest who officiates, 
fall upon the ground. Then he uncovers the right arm of the crucifix, and holding it up, begins with a louder voice, " behold the 
wood of the cross;" the rest sing and adore as before. Lastly, he goes to the middle of the altar, and entirely uncovering the 
cross and lifting it up, repeats, in a still louder voice, the same words as before. This done, he carries the cross to a place prepared 
for it before the altar, and kneeling down, leaves it there. Then he takes off his shoes, and draws near to adore the cross, bowing 
his knee three times before he kisses it ; having done this, he puts on his shoes ; after him, the ministers of the altar,, then the 
other clergy and the laity two and two, in like manner, adore the cross. In the mean time, while the cross is adoring, the choir 
sings several hymns, one of which begins thus : " ive adore thy cross O Lord." The solemnity of the day's service plainly 
shews, that the Roman Church adores the cross in the strictest sense of the word. See Preserv. against Popery, Tit. ix. p. £&. 

t Thomas Aquinas, on the question " Utrum Crux Christi sit adoranda adoratione Latrije ?" thus concludes, " Crux 
Christi in qua Christus crucifixus est, turn propter representationem , turn propter membrorum contactum Latria. adoranda est : 
crucis vero effigies, in alia quavis materia, priori tantum ratione Latuia adoranda est.'* 

+ Page 28. § Vespers, page 121. || Primer, p. 75. 



134 



ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



again, " *Mother of Grace, Mother of Mercy, protect us at the hour of death." St. Joseph's wor- 
ship, which was not thought of until the fourteenth century, rises next in consequence to that of his 
spouse, and still further confirms the justice of the foregoing inference. " fAssist me in all the 
actions of my life, all which I now offer to the everlasting glory of Jesus and Mary, as well as your 
own." Yet blasphemous and idolatrous as this must appear to every sensible reader, it is certain that 
such is the delicious manna, with which at this moment the good Roman Catholics of Ireland are fed. 
In addition to this, as the honours intended her by the {Institution of the Rosary and Crown are 
still shewn her, and as even of late years, a new and distinct ^worship is offered her, in consequence of 
the many excellencies she has bee.i discovered to possess, which had escaped the notice of antiquity; 
it is evident that the objection, against which the preceding article was drawn up, is not obviated. 
In short Diana was never crouched to with more abject superstition by the Ephesians, than 1 our lady 
of Loretto' by the Papists. 

Third Arlicle. " Cursed is he that believes the Saints in heaven to be his Redeemers, that 
prays to them as such, or that gives God's honour to them, or to any creature whatever." 

It is denied in this article, that the Popish Church looks on the Saints in the light of 
Redeemers. The influence, however, which they possess as intercessors, not less than the qualifi- 
cations which entitle them to canonization, is really surprising. Cave, in his Lives of the Fathers, 
relates, that Apollonia, a virgin and martyr, having had her teeth knocked out, was made the tutelary 
goddess of all who had the tooth ache, (risum leneatis ?) and that she was not only prayed to as an 
intercessor, but that through her passion, she would obtain for them the remission of all sins com- 
mitted by teeth or mouth, either through gluttGny or evil speaking! 

It is also recorded, that Buonaventure was addressed in language which fell nothing shprt of 
blasphemy. But Thomas a Beckett's merits exceeded those of all other Saints ; they were such as 
appear to have susperceded those of Christ himself. In the following verse, it is said that he made 
a voluntary sacrifice of himself, and that Christ is prayed to. for his sake. 

Tu,,per Thom.'e sanguinem, 

Quern pro se impendit 
Fac, nos, Christe, scandere 

Quo Thomas ascendit. 

But it is also denied, that God's honour is given to ths Saints. To this the Popish Missal gives 
direct contradiction, -as it contains prayers which are desired to be addressed to the Saints; and if 
they be prayed to as intercessors and mediators, is it not imparting to them the honour of God the 
Son ? That it is, a few instances will abundantly prove. 

On the appropriate day of the tutelary Saint of Ireland, God is through his intercession, entreated 
to bestow certain blessings. 

" ||0 God, who was pleased to send blessed Patrick, thy bishop and confessor, to preach thy glory 

* Primer, p. go. f Office of St. Jos. \ See Sect. ix. No. 54. % H^perdulia. 

il Die xvii. Martii. In Fe«to S. Patricii, " ejus merilis, et intercessione, concede 5 ut quae nobis agenda piaecipis, te mise- 
rante adimplere possimus." Missale Romanum, p. 372. 



ABJURATOttY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



135 



to the Gentiles, grant that by his merits and intercession, we may through thy mercy, be enabled to 
perform what thou commandest." 

On St. George the martyrs day, the collect used, is, f< *0 God, who by the merits and prayers of 
blessed George, thy martyr, fillest the hearts of thy people with joy, mercifully grant that the blessings 
we ask through him, we may happily obtain by thy grace." 

On the festival of St. Peter's chair at Rome, the collect for the day concludes thus: " fGrant 
that by his intercession, we may be freed from the bonds of our sins, &c." Even stronger expressions 
are used in the festivals of the Indian Apostle, and of St. Thomas of Canterbury. A more recent 
instance of misapplied supplication may be found in the pastoral address of the bishop of Oporto to 
his clergy, on the invasion of Portugal, by Junot. They are desired to offer up their prayers to St. 
Joachim, their patron and saint, while the name of God is not once mentioned throughout the entire 
of that extraordinary and blasphemous production. Popish devotees style themselves the ^.servants 
of this same Portuguese Saint, in their Missal. They pray that by the intercession of St. Richard, 
they may arrive " at the glory of eternal bliss :" and that through the merits of St. Nicholas, they 
may be " delivered from the ^flames of hell." As a further enumeration of instances of this kind, 
would but prove wearisome to the reader, it will relieve him somewhat by presenting him with a few 
stanzas of a hymn; which contain applications to the saints no less direct than those in the collects 
■ of the Missal. 

|) O you true lights of: human kind, 
And judges of the world design'd, . 
To you our hearty vows we show., .. 

I Hear your petitioners below, . 
The gates of heaven by your command, 
Are fasten'd close, or open stand ; 
Grant, we beseech you, then, that we 
Erom sinful slav'ry maybe free. 

Sickness and health your pow'r obey; 
This comes, and that you drive away : 
Then from our souls, all sickness chace, 
Let healing virtues take its place. 

It may now be asked, could Christ himself be approached with deeper humility, or greater bless- 

* In festo S. Georgii martyris, " concede propitius 5 ut quae per eum beneficia poscimus, dono tuae gratiae consequamur, 
Miss, Rom. p. 386. 

f In Festo Cathedrae S. Petri, " concede ut intercessionis ejus auxilio a peccatorum nostrorum nexibus liberemur," 
Ibid. p. 33g. 

% " Famulis confer salutis opera." Ibid. § Agehennse incendiis. Ibid. 

}| Vos seculorum judices, Qui templa cash clauditis, Praecepta quorum protinus, 

Et vera mundi lumina, J Serasque verbo solvitis, Languor salusque sentiunt, 

Votis precamur cordium j Nos a reatu noxios : Sanate mentes languidas j 

Audite voces supplicum. | Solvi jubete, qusesunous, Augete aos virtutibus. 



136 



ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



ings be asked from him, than those here specified? But, besides, in this derogation from the dignity 
of God the Son, do we not find two of his attributes, his omnipresence and omiscience, ascribed to 
the particular saint, whom the worshipper addresses? For, otherwise, how could the suppliant be cer- 
tain that his petitions were either heard or known by him, to whom they were offered ? To such im- 
piety does this senseless custom lead. 

Therefore, even admitting that one Redeemer only is addressed as such in the Popish Church, 
still that does not get over the objection of giving God's honour to saints as intercessors. For, as 
there is but one who redeemeth, so there is but one who maketh intercession for mankind. 

Fourth Article. u Cursed is he that worships any breaden God, or makes Gods of the empty 
elements of bread and wine." 

As this is one of those points, respecting which so much doubt and uncertainty is entertained by 
the infallible Church of Rome, it is proper to present the reader with some extracts from the Canon 
Miss,e, which proves the act of adoration, and from the Canons of the Councils of Trent, where 
the strange and horrible doctrine of transubstantiation is solemnly promulged, and then offer such 
remarks as the subject reqaires. 

The directions to the Priest in the *Canon of the Mass are as follow : " Having pronounced the 
words of consecration (this is my body) he immediately adores the consecrated host on his knees ; he 
rises, shews it to the people, replaces it on (Corporate) the linen cover, again adores it." 

t FIRST CANON OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. 

" If any one shall deny that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really 
and substantially contained the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and 
divinity, and consequently the whole Christ ; but shall say, that he is in it, only as in a sign, or by 
a figure, or virtually, let him be accursed. 

In the ^Second Canon, the anathema is pronounced on those who "deny the miraculous and sin- 
gular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the wine into the blood, the 
appearances only of bread and wine remaining. 

And in the §Third Canon, the curse is extended to those who deny " that the whole Christ 
is contained under each appearance and under every individual particle of each species, whenever a sepa- 
ration takes place." 

Here it is laid down by the Council of Trent, that at the solemnization of the Eucharist the bread 
and wine are actually changed into the proper body and blood of Christ, so as not to retain even so 
much as a single particle of their original elements. By this singular decision the character of the 

* Prolatis verbis consecrationis (Hoc est Corpus Meum) statim Hostiam consecratam genuflexus adorat ; surgit, osten- 
dit populo, reponit super corporate, iterum adorat." Missale Roraanurn, p. 211. 

f " Si quis negaverit in sanctissimo EucharistUc Sacramento, contineri vere, realiter, et substantialiter, corpus et sanguinem 
una cum animd et divinitate Domini nostri Jesu Christi, et proinde totum Christum, sed dixerit tantummodo esse in eo utjn 
•igno vel figura aut virtute, Anathema esto." 

£ " Si quis negaverit mirabilem et singularem conversionem totius substantia panis in corpus, et vini in sanguinem, manen- 
tibus duntaxat speciebus panis et vini, Anathema esto." 

§ " Si quis negaverit in venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae sub unaquaque specie, et sub singulis cujusque speciei partibus , 
sepateatione facta, totum Christum contineri, Anathema esto." 



ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



137 



priest is exalted, his sanctity is pointed out, and the gift which enables him to work so astonishing 
a miracle is declared. But even more than this is effected by it, as it is insinuated, that others maybe 
benefited by the very act of his officiating. Hence masses as well for the dead as for the living, that 
gainful source of his emolument. These, if the truth were acknowledged, are the real causes of the 
introduction of that abominable doctrine into the Popish Church. A miracle indeed is pretended to 
be wrought, but this miracle, unlike all others, is denied the testimony of the senses for its approval. 
In a sacrifice too, suffering is implied ; but in the present case, the warmest advocates for the doctrine 
will not go so far as to affirm that Christ suffers : and after the division, elevation, and worship of the 
victim, instead of being destroyed, as it is supposed to be by the sacrificial act ; if any be left, it not 
unfrequently happens, that it becomes the food of vermin. 

" Cursed is he that worships a breaden God," says the article. This surely is a doctrinal point, 
and one on which, as the *Popish Church itself admits, it could not pass an erroneous opinion ; yet 
no where is it more doubtful or uncertain. For, as it has decreed, that the Sacrament cannot be 
valid if the intention of the priest be wanting, (that is, if he do not actually intend to change the bread 
and wine into the body and blood of Christ, they continue bread and wine after the ceremony,) and 
as there can be no moral certainty that such intention does absolutely accompany the act of consecration, , 
it is altogether impossible for the person, who prostrates himself in humble adoration before the 
wafer, to know, but that, all the time, he may be worshipping the very flour and water of which it is 
composed, and consequently, be guilty of the grossest idolatry. The article is of so equivocal a cast, 
and so well calculated to strengthen the delusion under which the ignorant papist lies, that it is mere 
trifling in those venerable prelates (as they are styled in the Synthetical Arrangement) to send it forth 
into the world as their solemn renunciation of the idolatrous practice " laid at their door." It is need- 
less for them to say that the " multitudinous " laity, believe, that the consecrated bread and wine con- 
tain the body and blood, the bones and all the other appurtenances of the manhood of Christ ; in other 
words, that they believe an impossibility, since such a belief is but the proof of superlative faith and 
devotion, according to the well-known maxim of believing a thing because of its being impossible. 
The dogma which enjoined the disciples of Pythagoras to an abstinence from the use of beans, under 
the idea, that they contained the parts of a man, has been laughed at ; how much more deservedly, 
then, does the credulity of the modern Papist become liable to ridicule and derision ? For it is far 
less wonderful, that the follies of a dark age should have had its votaries, than that the absurdities, 
the weakness, and the wickedness of priestcraft, should not only be maintained, but recommended by 
such men as Troy, Coppinger, and Milner, at a period distinguished for its learning, civilization, 
and a general diffusion of knowledge. 

fMr. Fletcher, another strenuous defender of Popery, thus exhibits the meaning of the article 
in its true colours. " In the Eucharist," says he, " we do not adore the bread and wine ; for this plain 
reason, that we do not believe bread and wine to exist in it. We adore only Christ himself." Then, if, 

* " The Church is infallible in her doctrinal decisions and canons, in points of faith and morals ; and therefore the Catho- 
lics are obliged to adhere, implicitly, to such decrees and canons of the church, assembled in general councils, and confirmed by 
the Pope, as articles of faith." See Doctor Troy's Pastoral Letter. Dublin, 1793. 

f See Remarks on the Grounds of Separation, See. 



138 



ABJURATORY CLAUSES EXAMINED. 



after this sophistical renunciation, it be still urged that the worshippers of the host incur the sin of idola- 
try ; he thus evades such an imputation : " We worship it," says Mr. F. " as Christ, it is Christ. But 
even if conceiving that to be Christ, which in reality is not Christ, I worship it as Christ, lam guilty 
of a mistake, I am not guilty of idolatry." A man's misconception or ignorance, will not surely make 
the act less an idolatrous one ; and however they may plead in his behalf with an all-merciful God, they 
never can make that innocent which is in itself criminal. So that whether Romanists be mistaken in 
supposing the wafer to be a transubstantiated God ; or whether they be justified in their opinion ; the 
worship of the host, as an image of God, in either case, directly violates a positive command, and is 
consequently idolatrous. 

The plain inference from all this is, that the declaration made in the fourth article is both 
nugatory and calculated to deceive. And as all the remaining ones are of the same stamp, drawn up 
in imposing language, and methodised with jesuitical skill, it would be but a waste of time to proceed 
further in their exposure. 



APPENDIX 

Containing remarks on the Preface to the fourth edition of the Errata. 



The fourth and last edition of the Errata did not come to hand, until the body of this work 

bad been committed to the Printer, otherwise, the following remarks on the answer to Doctor 

Ryans Analysis, which it comprises, should have been ranged under the corresponding ones on 

the Errata itself. The author of that answer has not thought proper to disclose his name, 

probably ashamed of the violence of the language which he uses ; or of the badness of his 

cause, and the impotence of his efforts to sustain it. He contents himself with stating, that it 

is written by the Rev. Doctor L. a Catholic Priest. But with his motives, whatever they 

may have been, the public have no concern, as it is alike indifferent to them, whether this 

disguised writer be a member of Maynooth College ; or* Doctor Lanigan, so celebrated for his 

* When mention is made of the R. Rev. Doctor Lanigan of Kilkenny, his four celebrated ways of evading the fulfilment of 
a promise naturally occur to the mind. Indeed, they are so intimately connected with his name, that it would be doing him an 
injustice to withhold what has given him a character, which Dr. Milner, with all his exertions, has not yet been able to attain. 

The non-observance of a promise, says Doctor L. may proceed from any of these four causes. 1. When a person 
promises what it is impossible to perform. 2. When observance of the promise would be injurious to the person to whom it 
was made. 3. Or, inconvenient to the person making it. And, lastly, a person may violate an engagement, if circumstances 
afterwards arise, which, had they been foreseen, he would not have entered into it. This, surely, will not shrink from a compa- 
rison with that maxim of the Jesuits' creed, " that the person who takes an oath, or enters into a contract, may, to elude the 
force of the one, and the obligation of the other, add certain mental additions and tacit reservations" (See Mosh. Eccl. 
Hist. Vol. v. p. 192). Yet this is the odious doctrine, which is to be taught throughout Ireland, if, as the Public Papers 
report, the revival of the order of Jesuits takes place. But, even were the papal sanction obtained, which it seems is alone 
wanting to the completion of the measure, the rulers of the land would not for a moment tolerate the existence of such an 
institution. When Louis XVth. found it imperative on him to suppress it in France, and that his cotemporary, Pope Clement, 
in 1 773> set his seal to its utter annihilation ; what ought to be the caution used against its introduction into a Protestant State ? 
What ought to be the opposition given to the re-establishment of an Order which could be guided by rules such as these I 
The rebellion of a clergyman against his Prince, is raoihigh treason, because he is not subject to the Prince. If a Priest in 
confession have intelligence of some great danger intended to the state, it is sufficient to give a general warning to take heed. 
He, also, against whom evil is intended, may be warned to take heed to himself, at such a place and time, so that the penitent 
be not in danger to be discovered thereby." Jesuits' Catechism, book ii. page J\. But their restoration is not to be appre- 
hended ; notwithstanding that it is confidently stated, that a seminary, in which Jesuitical principles are to be inculcated, is on 
the eve of being established in a town (Midleton perhaps) not far distant from Cork. 

The following verses are a specimen of the Jesuits double-faced creed. It will suit either Protestants or Papists, and has 
been varied by the exiled members of the Society, according as the people among whom they sojourned, happened to be one 
$>r other. It is an excellent translation of the original' Latin, and appeared some years ago in the Antijacobin Review. 

1 hoM for faith ■ • What England's Church allows. 

What Rome's Church saith, — — My conscience disavows. 

Where the king's head, . . . The flock can take no shame. 

The flock's misled • Who holds, the Pope supreme; 

Where the altar's drest ■ The worship's scarce divine. 

The people's blest — — - Whose table's bread and wine. 

He's but an ass ■ — ■ Who their communion flies. 

Who shuns the mass Is Catholic and wise. 

Who, after this, can help exclaiming with good old Bishop Kidder "■ from Jesuistry, Papistry, and all such abominations ;" 
®r, in the more emphatic language of the ancient liturgy : " from the tyranny of the Church of Rome, and all her detestabls 
enormities ; good Lord, deliver us ?" See Book of Com. Prayer. Ed. Grafton and Whitchurch. London. 1552. 

T 2 



140 APPENDIX. 

ingenious metaphysical distinction between a solemn and a serious promise; or Doctor Lingard, 
the English Roman Catholic Priest, spoken of in a preceding *note. 

In his introductory, and, indeed, in his subsequent articles, Ward is the subject of Doctor 
L.'s panegyric, while the respectable author of the Analysis, is made the victim of his rancour 
and abuse. However, this latter circumstance should be a matter of real satisfaction to Doctor 
Ryan; as nothing can more forcibly demonstrate the merit of his performance, than the rude- 
ness with which this ill-tempered scholar treats him. Abruptly commencing his attack, he 
observes, that Doctor Ryan warmly contends, that the imputed errors in the first English ver- 
sion of the Scriptures arose from ignorance in the Translators. The fact is, that Doctor Ryan 
betrays no warmth whatever in discussing the subject; he simply states, that | Father Simon 
says, that the Translations of the Protestants could not be exact, J" as most of the first Trans- 
lators were not very learned in the Hebrew and Greek languages." Doctor Ryan goes no 
farther, and yet he is accused by his reviewer of unfairness in concealing from his readers, that 
Father Simon spoke of the Protestant Translators ' in general,' and not of the English Trans- 
lators in particular. A reference to the works themselves will satisfy the candid enquirer, that 
Doctor Ryan suppressed nothing necessary to be known, and that Father Simon points out the 
English Trasslators in particular, in the above cited passage : for, he closes the paragraph 
immediately preceding it, with an account of the command issued at the Hampton Court confe- 
rence, and begins that which immediately follows, with shewing the necessity which existed of 
making a new translation from the Latia into the Vulgar tongue, for the use of those of the 
Popish communion. 

The Reformers next come under the Reviewer's lash. " They," says he, " incompetent to 
the task, and conscious of their incompetency, still presumed to violate the purity of the sacred 
volumes, and to obtrude on their unsuspecting disciples an erroneous version, as the immaculate, 
word of God, and as the sole and infallible guide to % religious truth." This idle papistical cant 
is the same which Gregory Martin, Ward, and every advocate for Popery since the era of the 
Reformation, have been in the habit of using. As, therefore, this is but a bare repetition of 
the charges brought forward in the Errata, and which have been repelled in this work, it would 
be a superfluous undertaking to re-examine them. With respect to what Doctor L. says of the 
Reformers setting up their version of the Scriptures, " as the sole and infallible guide to reli- 
gious truth ;" he is, in no way, authorised. For, so far were the Reformers from arrogating to 
themselves any thing bordering on perfectness, that, in the true spirit of the primitive church, 
they utterly disclaimed the slightest pretensions to it. 

Doctor L. then proceeds to state how unjustly poor Mr. Ward has been treated, and how 
his opponents, overlooking his object, " affect to consider his accusation of the clergy of Queen 
Elizabeth, as directed against the clergy of the present reign." This is a very subtle way of 
softening down the harshness of Ward's impeachments, and of making them somehow palat- 



* See page 128. 

f Chit. Hist, of the O. Test. Book ii. c. 1 . % Analysis of Ward's Errata of the Protestant Bible: Page 5. 



APPENDIX. 



HI 



able; but it will not do. The Divines of the Church of England are not disposed to be 
captious, or to apply to themselves what is not directed to them ; but in the present instance, 
if not immediately, they are mediately attacked, and are therefore called on to defend themselves, 
by temperate and firm discussion, against the insidious arts of their adversaries. After attri- 
buting crimes of " diabolic malignity" to the Reformers, and applying language no less coarse 
to Doctor Ryan, without so much as noticing his arguments, he concludes his leading paragraph 
in this singular manner. ' Adrian IV. made a grant of Ireland to Henry II. by reason of which 
Doctor Ryan lost an extensive property; therefore his attempt to answer Ward is the conse- 
quence!!' With respect to the former, the effects of their pious labours have, in these coun- 
tries, been so sensibly felt, that their memories can never suffer from the obloquy of their Popish 
calumniators; and as to the latter, it is certain, that the Protestant public owe him much for the 
spirited stand, which he has made in defence of what lias been sanctioned by the wisdom of 
ages — the existing version of their Bible. - 

The assertions repeatedly made in his strictures by Doctor L. that the reason why parti- 
cular passages, censured by Ward, have been left unnoticed in the Analysis, arose from the 
author's inability, (or rather from the impossibility, which he found,) to defend them ; cannot 
but convince such as deemed Ward's book undeserving a full-length answer, that any reply 
falling short of it, would be liable to the objections raised against the Analysis. To the saga- 
city and penetrating judgment of the learned Prelate, whose name sanctions these pages, is to 
be attributed the anticipation in this work, of such objections. *" For," says he, " if you omit 
the notice of any of the texts, the cunning will contend, and the ignorant suspect, that the 
strongest objections lay among those which did not appear." The soundness of this remark has 
been since confirmed by the vapouring of Doctor L. because Ward did not receive a ' detailed* 
answer. 

The Author regrets to find, that his work has already passed the limits which he prescribed 
to himself at the outset. He designed a few pages ; he has written a large book, and feels it 
necessary still to add to it. But to such as understand the nature of controversy this will not 
appear surprising, as a single objection may require several pages for its 'confutation. He has 
met Ward in every stage of his enquiry, and had he confined himself solely to the consideration 
of those texts about which, and which only, the established Church of these countries has any 
concern, as being in the received version of her Scriptures, he might have reduced his remarks 
into a compass correspondingly small with that into which those texts might be collected. But 
he has already assigned his reasons for the enlarged view of the subject which he has taken. 
His immediate object, at present, is to examine, with brief and critical accuracy, the justice of 
Doctor L.'s remarks, contained in the Preface to the fourth edition of Ward's Errata. To it, 
therefore, he proceeds. 



* See Dedication, 



14* 



APPENDIX. 



ARTICLE I. 

Doctor L. says, " it is an improvement in the present Bible," that church is substituted for 
congregation ; but that " it is at the same time a condemnation of its predecessors." In one of 
the earliest bibles, that of 1562, the text Matt. xvi. 18. " Upon this rock I will build my 
congregation, &c." is accompanied by a note in the margin to this effect: " I will build my 
congregation or Church." What, therefore, it may be asked, could the early Translators mean 
by congregation but church ; or how could their successors be said to pass any censure on them 
by the mere substitution of a synonime? See Section I. No. I — 5, where this subject i» 
treated of more at large. 

On the text Cant. vi. 8. he observes, Ward's " censure was levelled against the more 
ancient reading in the English bibles," — ' my dove is alone,' and not against the present read- 
ing, — 1 my dove is but one.' In this cavil, Doctor L. like Ward, converts a mole-hill into a 
mountain ; as the word alone is at least as significant of the unity of the Church, as the word 
one ; the use of it too, guards as much against any misconception of the Church being included 
among the queens, the concubines, and the virgins, enumerated by Solomon in the verse which 
precedes that in which it occurs, as the use of the other. 



ARTICLE II. 

It is, says Doctor L. to the ancient reading of *Acts iir. 21. " whom heaven must contain/*" 
which, through artifice, is not noticed in the Analysis, that Ward objected, and not to the 
modern one, " whom heaven must receive." Here, then, the only difference is between contain 
and receive, and although Doctor L. says, that the former reading is a corruption, and relates to 
the sacrament, he rests his proof on no other foundation than on the variance between it and 
the latter. The observation, therefore, which Doctor Ryan confined to the one,, is applicable 
to both : viz. that they bear no more relation to the sacrament than a treatise of Astronomy. 
For an answer to the charge, which, Doctor L. says, was brought against Beza by Ward ; see 
Section II. No. 10. 

The Protestant translation of Jer. xi. 19- " let us cast wood upon his bread," observes 
Doctor L. agrees with the modernHebrew, and the popish one, with the Greek, the Vulgate, and 
the Arabic ; therefore, he concludes, the Hebrew reading is false ! Here, without stating any 
reasons whatever why he thinks the Hebrew text corrupt, and the others not, except the agree- 

* The Protestant Translation of hfaefai is " receive and the Popish one of suscipere (the Vulg. Lat.) receive."' 
Will Dr« L. say, that the latter is correct? 



APPENDIX, 143 

ment between these versions, he arrives per saltum, at his conclusion; a mode of reasoning 
not likely to satisfy those who ground their assent on proof, rather than on assertion. He 
considers nrw as "probably the more ancient reading, cut as w ui^ „*„ se Q ^ ^ e Dassa e there 
is no material difference between that word and the received one. Besides, Jerome's meaiim*. 
may as well be grounded on the one, as on the other. " They have," says Doctor L. " been 
compelled to give ons a new meaning, viz. fruit instead of bread" That word when spoken 
of in reference to a tree is always rendered by *fructus, so that the translation given it is neither 
forced, nor uncommon. Doctor L. tells his readers, that Ward placed this text under the head 
of false translations against the sacrament, because he suspected it (excellent ground to go on !) 
to have been made for that purpose. He then boasts, that Doctor Ryan injures his cause. Can 
it be said, that Dr. L. serves his own ? See No. 11. 

On two passages, Gen. xx. 3, " thou art a dead man, for the woman thou hast taken, (V) 
for she is a man's wife :" and Isaiah lxiv. 5. " Behold, thou art wrath, (■>) for we have sinned :" 
Doctor L. remarks, the Protestant Translators have rendered the Hebrew particle,jfor, and yet 
refuse it in Gen. xiv. 18, where they read " and he was the priest, &c„" The justice of the 
observation made in No. 12, is confirmed in the very texts which he cites : — viz. that the meaning 
of the Hebrew particle is determinable by the sense of the passage • but that the sense of the 
passage is not determinable by it. It is remarkable enough, that the Douay Translators appeal 
to the Hebrew in the above passage of Isaiah, when the Vulgate translation of the Hebrew 
particle is et, and overlook it in the other case, when enim is adopted. Their reading is " and 
we have sinned ;" but a marginal f note on the word ' and,' sets forth, that " and signifieth for." 
They in consequence admit the variable nature of vau, by having recourse to an interpretation, 
according to which, a disjunctive is confounded with a copulative particle, contrary to the rules 
of language; and thus inadvertently not only condemn the Latin version, but even their own. 

After much idle railing at Doctor Ryan, Doctor L. proceeds to justify Ward's suspicions, 
that the Protestant Translators added the words for all in the passage Heb. x. 10, in support of 
their favourite doctrine that Christ was not offered daily, and omitted them in every other 
passage, in which the Greek term £(pu7ia^ occurs. As long as suspicions continue to be substi- 
tuted for proof, the cause of the English Translators cannot be considered desperate. If, 
however, Doctor L. will only refer to a note in page 122, which contains Schleusner's 
admirable explanation of the Greek adverb, he will see on what grounds the translators are 
justified in adding these words, in one instance, and omitting them in the other \four instances, 
in which the Greek term is to be met with. 

Doctor L. quotes Chrysostom as establishing the daily sacrifice; but like Ward and 
Milner, he mutilates the text, and only gives what is favourable to himself. k%u^ 7rpo<njv£%9ij, 
next et$ to an vipKse-e. . ..... 71 av. Sec. as below. He begins his extract with the foregoing 



* Leigh's Crit. Sack, in Loc. t Douay Bible. Vol. II p. 542. 

X Rom. vi. 10. Heb. vii. 27. Ib. Lx. 12. 1 Cor. xv. 6, 



144 APPENDIX. 

sentence, which, it is insisted on, is not in the Homily cited ; at least, not in the form which he 
gives it : and from the dotted space between it and n av, with which it is seemingly connected, he 
would lead his readers to suppose tW i™j ou.Utvd u.«fc*ai»b matter. That it is not 

iL,jigu > iwvvuvci, will appear, by presenting the text in unbroken series from the part above 

quoted, with which Doctor L. sets out, to be the end of the Homily. It will be necessary to 
recollect, that the portion within the brackets is suppressed by him, and that where the mark <|f 
occurs, be stops short, instead of honestly proceeding with the sequel. This contrivance, as it 
has not escaped detection, shall not want exposure. The following is an exact translation of the 
Greek. " *What then ? Do we not offer daily ? We do, but we excite a remembrance of his death ; 
and this is one sacrifice, not many. [How is it one, and not many ? When it was once offered, 
it was brought into the holy of holies. This (viz. the Jewish rite) is a type of that, (viz. the 
grand offering ;) and this itself (viz. the daily sacrifice) is a type of that]. For we always 
offer himself ; not one to day, another to-morrow, but always the same. Wherefore there is 
one victim. ^[ For this reason, since he is offered in many places, are there many Christs? By 
no means. But there is one Christ every where, and he is here full, and there full; one body. 
Since, therefore, he being offered in many places is one body ; and not many bodies, so there is 
one sacrifice. He is our High Priest, who offered that victim which cleanseth us. We offer 
that now which was then offered ; an inconsumable {uvuKutov) sacrifice. This is done in 
remembrance of that which then happened. For he said ' do this in remembrance of me.' We 
do not, like the High Priest, offer different {Bv<riug) sacrifices, but always the same; or rather 
we effect a commemoration of the sacrifice." 

It is now submitted to the learned and candid reader, whether it can be collected, as Doctor 
L. says, from that ancient father's words, " that though Christ was offered once, and his offering 
sufficeth for ever, yet we offer him daily : but that it is one and the same sacrifice, because we 
offer one and the same tvictim ;" and not, rather, that his meaning is grossly misrepresented. 
St. Chry sos torn makes mention, it is true, of a daily sacrifice; (and Protestants do not object to 
its frequency, if it be taken in a spiritual sense:) but had he understood ($uo-»a) the sacrifice, or 

* T< sv j if«»$ x«9' 'txxpiv yi^uv s nqoatpt^ofAet ; wgo!7pEfOf«v, aXV a\iap.tri<rn woiSf/.Ei/oj <ra Qxtxru avra' xxi f*f« Ef-'f uvrvt 
x«> 8 wo?iXai. [m{ fti« trtv, s ■nol&tu ; ETrsiiV) xnx% trpomnx® 7 !' 8X£lv *> £ 'S t» ayia rat ayiav. tsto txvvm TTIT02 xat a.vrr) 

txBtmi] rot yu% avrai ait ir^oo-^oi^m' 8 wv p.it ete^ov, avgtot hvr^ot, aU' an r» avro. am |t*i« trtt h §voia. tiri ru hoyu rura, eim$n 
itriHhayjs •s^ia^i^ircn, oto\*.oi %g<roi ; p,»)5aif*tt{. a^V 'ei? ttavrayji o yj^m, xa\ t>rav6a Tflaigif m, kdu exei w?i>jg»i;, *ev crapa. 'uaiti^ 8» 
naKKayji 7r£ocr£>E£OfiE><os 'ev tja^a. Efi, km 8 ttoMus o-apara, ira xai p.\a Svaia. o agyitgtvs vifAav ixtivai; crtv, o rw Suo-iav rts» xx%x^aerat ijnaj 
jr^otrcttfxuv. txuvw w^o^t^ojAiv xat vvv rr,v rare rnQocznyfiaaav Tnv aw"hurov. ruro si; avapwiatv ytnrat ru tote yivopiev&, tsto <yag ttcieite, (psja-i, 
ei? ipyv uvapmirtv. ax at&Yiv §v<7tav xa§a7TE§ c i aKKa, Tnv xxirni an isotapnv J pMfaov 5e ANAMNH2IN tgya^ofneSx Sfcia;. ChRTS. 

Bened. Ed. Id Epis. ad Heb. c. ix. Horn. xvii. * 

t There is an absurdity in the application of the word victim into which Popish writers necessarily fall. For as it is 
solely confined to a dead, and not to a living body, (the original being hostia, which implies host, victim.) how can it, in any case, 
be referred to our Saviour ? Gregory of Nyssa, vol. iii. p. 389, speaking of Christ observes, a yap av rjv To cuj^a ts kpsm 
TTsof eSwJijv vmrrfimy siirsp tpvtyvyyv ijv. " For the body of the victim would not be fit to eat, if it were alive." 



APPENDIX. 



145 



offering, which he speaks of, in the Popish sense, that is, as containing the body and blood 
of Christ, it is evident that he would not have called it, (T TITOS) a *Type or Figure. 
Doctor L. himself distinctly admits, that he would not, by the very circumstance of his 
suppressing the passage where that word occurs. Moreover, the Father, in the last sentence 
of his discourse, (so prudently kept out of sight by Dr. L.) where he contrasts the Christian 
with the Jewish sacrifice, clearly determines, that he considered the former not less than the 
latter as figurative or typical of the sacrifice of Christ himself. " We do not," says he, 
" like the High Priest, make different sacrifices, but always the same: but we rather make a 
remembrance; or, by our act, cause a remembrance to be made (ANAMNH2IN spyalo^sSoc) of the 
* sacrifice. So Eusebius, after remarking that Christians no longer sacrifice, because of the one 
sacrifice of Christ, which has superseded all others, calls the elements symbols: " having, 
therefore, received the command to celebrate the memory of that sacrifice by the symbols of 
his body, and of his saving blood, we are, &c." Origen, a century before him, used the same 
language ; so have the most eminent of the Latin fathers ; and, to come down to modern times, 
even in the "{"translation of Bossuet's exposition made by the R. R. Doctor Coppinger, where 
the consecration is spoken of, he unwittingly observes, " Jesus Christ said separately, ' this is 
my body, this is my blood ;' which includes a lively and efficacious representation of the violent 
death which he underwent." 

Some extracts taken from the works of iElfric, a Saxon writer of the tenth century, by 
the Rev. John Lingard, in his history of the Anglo-Saxon Church, seem so peculiarly to belong 
to the present subject, that their omission would be unpardonable. After noticing that JE'fric 
has been hailed by Protestant writers as the first of English Reformers, +Mr. Lingard proceeds 
to give his own translation of the passage in iElfric's sermon on the sacrifice of the mass, as also 
the original Latin of Bertram, for the purpose of shewing that /El trie's sentiments are perfectly 
Catholic, i. e. Popish. As it strikes the writer of this article, the language of both accords 
with that of the Church of England, e. g. " Much is there," says iElfric, " between the 
invisible might of the holy husel, (the ghostly body is called the husel) and the visible appear- 
ance of its own kind. In its own kind it is corruptible bread, and corruptible wine; but after 
the might of the divine word, it it truly Christ's body and his blood, not indeed in a bodily, but 
in a ghostly manner." Immediately after, — " and therefore nothing is to be understood in it 
after a bodily, but all to be understood after a ghostly manner." And, " for this reason the 
holy husel is called a sacrament; because one thing is seen in it, and another understood." And, 
" this sacrament is a pledge and a figure: Christ's body is truth." Lastly, " truly it is, as we 
said before, Christ's body and his blood, not after a bodily, but after a ghostly manner. Nor 
shall ye search how it is made so : but hold that it is made so." By giving the above passages, 

* Chrysostom, (vol. vii. p. 783.) arguing against the heretics of his day, asks, £* yap /wj ct-jTeSaveY 6 Irptis, rtvo; vvptbXtx. 
ra re\8{j.Bva ; " For if Jesus had not died, whose symbols are they which are offered ?'* 

+ Section xiv. p. 100. + Antis. of the Ang. Sa's. Chuhcu. Vol. i. p. 343, et seq. 

U 



146 



APPENDIX. 



as they stand in Mr. Ling-aril's book, alt the advantages derivable from a man's own translation 
are conceded to him. That they are not inconsiderable, appears from a comparison of his version 
with a transcript made from an old English one of the same passages of the homily on the 
sacramental doctrine, which is preserved in the Library of the British Museum. 

As literal a translation of Bertram's Latin as the author could make is here offered. After 
speaking of the natural body, he says, * " but, indeed, the spiritual flesh, which spiritually feeds 
a faithful people, in its external appearance, consists of grains of corn wrought by the manufac- 
turer ; jointed by no nerves and bones, &c." Mr. Lingard lays great stress on the words in 
italics, as shewing that Bertram, (who did not consider the natural and eucharistic body the 
same,) confined the difference to the manner in which they exist. But he is too clear and 
explicit in other passages to be misunderstood; as when he remarks, that t" there is nothing in 
that food, nothing in that drink, to be understood in a corporeal sense, but it must be entirely 
apprehended spiritually." And, " ^St. Isidore shews, that every sacrament possesses within 
itself some mystery ; and that there is one thing which appears to the sight, and another to the 
mind." Again, " ||the outward thing which is seen has a corporeal appearance, but the inward 
thing which is understood, a spiritual fruit." And lastly, " §there is, indeed, a body of Christ, 
but not a carnal one ; there is a blood of Christ, not having the properties of blood, (i. e. not 
corporeal) but spiritual." These are the extracts which, Mr. Lingard says, contain language 
net repugnant to ' the Catholic doctrine.' Unquestionably not to Catholic doctrine but to 
the learned it is left to judge, whether it be not directly hostile to Popish doctrine, and to the 
sentiments of the Popish Church. But, beside jElfric ; Bertram and ^[Berenger, in the century 
immediately following, and the other wi tters who denied the identity of the natural and eucha- 
ristic bedy of Christ, bear direct evidence in favour of the principles of the Church of England 
at this day, notwithstanding that Mr. Lingard maintains the contrary. 

One other passage, in jElfrie's Sermon on Easterday, is so decidedly adverse to the doctrine 
of Transubstantiation, that its insertion could not be dispensed with. It must be observed, that 

At vero caro spirituals quae popuium credentem spiritualiter pascit, secundum speciem quam gerit exterius, frumenti 
granis manu artificis consistit, nullis nervis ossibusque compacta,-&c." 

t " Nihil in esca ista, nihil in potu isto, corporaliter sentiendum, sed Mum spiritualiter attendendum, &c." 

+ " Ostendit (St. Isidoius) omne sacramentum aliquid secreti in se continere, et aliud esse quod visibiliter appareat, aliud 
vero quod invisibiliter sit accipiendum." 

|| " Exterius quod videtur, speciem habet corpoream, interius vero quod iBtelligitur, — fructum spiritualem, Sec" 

§ " Est quidem corpus Christi, sed von corporale, est sanguis Christi, sed non corporalis sed spiritualis, &c." 

It is most certain, that when Berenger treated of the presence of Christ's body in the Eucharist, he meant no more 
than a spiritual presence. And although he concealed his sentiments under ambiguous expressions to deceive his enemies, it is 
impossible to mistake his meaning on this point. " Constat," says he, " verum Christi corpus in ista mensa proponi, sed 
spiritualiter interiori homine verum in ea Christi corpus ab his duntaxat, qui membra sunt, incorruptum, intaminatum, 
inattritumque spiritualiter manducari." Martene's Thesaur. Tom. ii, p. 109. 



APPENDIX. u7 

Mr. Lingard has not noticed it. * " Now men have often searched, and do yet often search, how- 
bread that is gathered of corne, and through fyers heate baked, maye be turned to Christ's 
body, or how wyne that is pressed out of many grapes, is turned through one blessing to the 
Lorde's bloude. Now say we to such men, that some tilings be spoken of Christ by signification, 
some thynge by certaine. True thyng is, and certaine, that Christ was borne of a maide, and 
suffred death of his own accorde, and was buryed, and on this day rose from death. He is said 
bread by signification, and a Lambe, and a Lyon, and a Mountayne. He is called bread 
because he is our life and angell's life. He is sayd to be a ' lambe' for his innocence. ' A ' lyon' 
for strength wherewith he overcame the strong devill. But Christ is not so notwithstanding aftei 
true nature, neither bread, nor a lambe, nor a lyon." Then, after saying that the elements 
are one thing to the senses, and another to the mind, he thus proceeds, " An heathen childe is 
christened, yet he altereth not his shape without, though he be changed within, &c." 

The reader will find a concise and satisfactory account of TElfric, and his opinions 
respecting the eucharistic body, in Rapin's History of England, Vol. i. p. 143. Second Edit, 
and also in Henry's History of England, Vol. ii- p. ^02, 4to. 



ARTICLE III 

Doctor L. asks, if the first English Translators were not afraid of the word altar, why 
should they substitute temple in its place as a translation of Sva-iysriptov ? He further observes, 
f e when the Christian sacrifice was abolished, altars were unnecessar}-. They (the Reformers) 
had, of course, treated them with every species of indignity, and were too cautious politicians 
to permit them to be commended in the Scriptures." How ungrounded an imputation ! For 
although Matthews's Bible has the word temple in one of the texts quoted by Ward ; (viz. 1 Cor. 
ix. US.) yet immediately after, the word altar occurs, a strong proof that the Translator intended- 
no fraud, and was not in the remotest degree under the influence of fear. To inadvertence, 
then, alone, can the adoption of the former word be attributed, as in the very first edition of 
his Bible, which was printed by authority, the reading of both passages appeared the same. 

Enough has been said on q vivq in Section II. No. 15, to convince Doctor L. that the 
silence observed respecting that text in the Analysis, did not originate in the improper motives 
which he attributes to its learned author; there can be as little doubt that it did not proceed 
from his want of information on the subject, or of ability to apply it. 

* Guild's Translation from the Saxon, p. 30. Brit. Mus. Library. 

V 2 



MS 



APPENDIX. 



ARTICLE IV. 

Instead of combating the arguments brought forward in the Analysis to prove that elder is 
a more literal translation of 7rf>£<r@vTspos than priest, Doctor L. substitutes a chain of interroga- 
tories ; a strange way this is, either to establish Ward's positions, or to overturn those of his 
adversary. He begins with enquiring " what kind of men they were, whom the sacred writers 
designated by 7rps<ri2vT:-f>oi ?• We're they not ministers of religious worship ordained for that 
purpose by the Apostles? If they were, what is the proper term by which such ministers are 
described in the English language? Certainly priests." But not satisfied with this proof posi- 
tive of the faultiness of the English version, he proposes, byway of exemplifying the truth of 
what he says, * a Latin sentence to Doctor Ryan to translate, and asks him whether he would 
prefer the following as the more literal version. ' The overseer of London, with the greater of 
the city, and two eiders of the Church, visited the generality of Oxford?' Here the reader is 
presented with the same cavils, the same silly remarks and absurd objections, which were raised 
by Gregory Martin against the existing versions of his day. But as these have been already 
disposed of, it will be sufficient to refer on the subject, generally, to Sections IV. and V. One 
observation only remains to be made, that the Rhemists do the very thing which is here 
brought as a ground of complaint against the Protestant Translators; — that of varying, accord- 
ing to circumstances, ' their translation from the restricted to the extended signification of the 
same word. Thus they render (3a7r]i(rpLog (Mark vii. 4.) .washing, in one place, and in another 
(Heb. ix. 10.) baptism; c-n ktkoityi (Luke xix. 44.) "visitation, and again (Acts i. 20.) bishoprick ; 
and 7T{,£<?(3vTspog (Matt. xv. 2.) ancient, which they elsewhere render priest. This latter rendering- 
is certainly the more objectionable, as it implies a sacrificer, contrary to the intention of the 
writers of the New Testament. 

Doctor L.'s other objections to gift, in 1 Tim. iv. 14, and 2 Tim. i. 6, and to minister and 
deacon in the early translations of 1 Tim. iii. 8, will be found, in the forementioned Sections, 
abundantly refuted. 



ARTICLE K 



It is very singular how so sensible a writer as Doctor L. could waste his time in giving 
currency to the slanders and fabrications of Gregory Martin and Ward. The same objections 
which they made to overseers, elders, messengers, the renderings of the English Bibles, he calls 
into notice again ; although it might be expected, that he would abate somewhat of that violence 

* ' Episcopus Londihensis cum majore civitatis et duobus ecclesias preslyteris visitavit Universitatem Oxoniensem.' 



APPENDIX. 



149 



and ill-temper which characterise their writings. " Bishop," says Doctor L. " is rendered oner- 
seer, the highest functionary of the church is denoted by a term, which signifies a menial 
servant." The fitness of overseer as a translation of s'Tria-KO'rrog has been proved in Section V. 
No. 38 : and as to its implying a servile office, surely he can have no objection to that. Did he 
but consider, that the head of his own church, that functionary who raised himself above 
principalities and powers, assumed the title of ^Vicarius (Jesu Christi) i. e. a term expressing 
the lowest rank of servitude, he would scarcely have hazarded so futile a remark. He next 
observes, " we are gravely told of chusing or ordaining elders, as if any thing but time could, in 
the strict meaning of the word, make an elder." Can any thing be more childish; as if several 
persons had not been admitted by the Apostles as 7rpso-l3vT£pot on the score of gravity, judgment, &c. 
and not on account of their age? Beside, Doctor L. might know, that if priest did not signify 
sacrificer, the Protestant Translators would have adopted it. They are always consistent in their 
translation, while the Rhemists frequently use senior, ancient, &c. as a rendering for 7rp£<r(3vTepog, 
as well as priest. As to what he says respecting deacons, messengers, Sec. no remark different 
from what will be found in Section IV. is required. But, continues Doctor L. the Reformers 
were " politic to exclude bishops, priests, and deacons, that the people, who from habit had 
been accustomed to reverse these orders, might not conceive there was any foundation for them 
in Scripture." What an imputation ! This is, truly, out-Warding Ward ; for the very readings 
which obtained in the first English Bibles for the Greek words f s7n<rito7rog, 7rpea-(BvT£po$, &c. have 
not been changed to this day. The very principles, too, on which the Fathers of the English 
Church set out, and the apostolic forms of consecration and ordination by prayer and imposition 
of hands, which they adopted, are critically the same as those followed by their successors, and 
maintained up to the present time. So that, when he roundly asserts, that the three fore men- 
tioned orders were suppressed by the Reformers, he will find but few, however they may be dis- 
posed to admit his modesty, inclined to compliment him on his scrupulous regard to truth. 

His concluding cavil on the word v^spsxu, 1 Pet. ii. 13, has been sufficiently answered in 
Section V. No. 37- 



ARTICLE VI. 

The propriety of the Protestant Translation a sister, a wife, (1 Cor. ix. 5.) having been 
fully proved in Section VI. No. 39, more is not here necessary, than to notice the singular way, 
in which, according to Doctor L.'s rule, a translator should get rid of a difficulty, when it 

* "Sive Vicarius est qui servo paret, &c." Hon. Lib. ii. Sat. J. Also, " Esse sat est servum, jam nolo vicarius esse." 
Martial. Epig. ii. 

-j- Matthews's Version reads ' Bishop' in Phil. ii. 1 Tim, iii. 1 and 2, &c. 



150 



APPENDIX. 



occurs in the original. " He ought," says he, " to render the ambiguity of the text by an 
expression of similar ambiguity in the version, otherwise he does not offer a faithful copy of 
the original ; he does not translate, but interpret : he substitutes fallibility for infallibility." 
Monstrous! First, to charge this text in the original with ambiguity; next, to contend that a 
faithful translator should preserve the same ambiguity in his version ; and lastly, that by so 
doing, his version becomes infallible. 

In order to establish the Popish argument, St. Paul must have been a blockhead, in not 
being aware that a sister must be a woman; nay, he exposes himself to the imputation of being 
something worse, if he be supposed to have acted from design. Now, which of these accusa- 
tions would Doctor L. bring home to the Apostle? On the words ^B^hsiu Bsa, a female goddess, 
used by Homer, Lucian has exercised much satirical humour, perhaps more than it deserved ; as 
a poetical genius may convert a dry tautology into a beauty. But since this cannot be done in 
prosaic composition, it must be admitted, if al-Xipvi ywvi, an expression nearly parallel, be taken 
in the sense affixed to it by the Rhemists, that St. Paul, so remarkable in general for his senten- 
tious brevity, and the avoidance of unnecessary terms, exposes himself most deservedly to 
such sarcasm as the Grecian wit visited on the venerable Bard. 

What has been said in Section VI. No. 40, in reply to Ward's objections to the Protestant 
rendering of a-vfyyi yvmns, Phil. iv. 3, will apply to what Doctor L. adduces on the same 
subject, as he contents himself with a tame repetition of the indecent charges contained in the 
Errata. 

In bringing this Article to a close, it may be observed, that the celibacy of the clergy is 
neither of divine nor apostolical institution : not of divine, as our Saviour no where expressly 
commanded it; nor of apostolical, as it is universally allowed, that most, if not all, the f Apostles, 
were married men. It was a practice not general in its extent in the Greek Church until the end 
of the seventh century, and even then, only among bishops. It was limited, too, in the ancient 
Irish Church, and in the Anglo-Saxon Church, each priest was allowed one concubine if placed 
in the same rank with a wife. The permission was thus expressed, % u if a y>ne$tforsake his con- 
cubine and take another, let him be accursed." And in the Church of Rome a total celibate was 

* ©£tut» E^xAijo-ja. § IV. 

f It is an undoubted fact, that, for the first three ages, 720 vow of perpetual celibacy, nor abstinence from conjugal 
society, was required on the part of the clergy, as a condition of their ordination. It is generally agreed, that most of the 
Apostles were married ; and it is certain, that in the ages which immediately followed, Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, 
were married, without any reproof, or mark of dishonour being set on them. Bingham enumerates several instances. See 
Antis. Book iv. c. v. sect. 5. 

+ Si presbyter concubinam deserat, et aliam accipiat, anathema sit." Wilkin's Concilia, vol. i. p. 21 9. Art. xxxv. 
No injunction is imposed by this rule to abandon the concubine. But the Popish cceleles will say, it is understood, and that 
the curse extends to the person who attaches himself to a new companion. Be this as it may, the LXIVth Article of the above 
work proves that the Northumbrian Presbyters were not interdicted marriage, in the tenth century. The laws, by which 
they were regulated, were drawn up, A. D. 950. That just spoken of is as follows. " Si quis legitimam suam uxor em viven- 
iem dimittat, et aliam uxorem injuste duxerit, non habeat Dei misericordiam, nisi illud compenset." It is true, that celibacy 
is commendable, when a man embraces it, ex voluntate ; but it is equally so, that it is promotive of the grossest sensuality 
sod vice. 



APPENDIX. 151 

not finally established before the fifteenth century, at the council of Constance. That assembly, 
which consisted of 346 Bishops, and 564 Doctors, was scandalized by the attendance of 7000 
prostitutes ! Their presence stamped with infamy and disgrace so outrageous a violation of 
nature as the one which had been there sanctioned. 



ARTICLE VII. 

As Doctor L. has confined himself to a bare repetition of Ward's remarks on the Protestant 
translation of us n, Acts xix. 3, any observations, in addition to those made in Section VII. 
No. 44, may be dispensed with. Because into has, through a mere oversight, been substituted 
in the Analysis as the Rhemish version of sis m the above text ; Doctor L. as if he had gained 
any accession of strength to his cause, from so slight an inadvertence, calls on him " to reflect 
that the change of a single syllable will frequently cause a very important change in the sense." 
This, however, is not one of those cases in which an important, or, indeed, any change in the 
sense, as has been already stated, could be effected by the alteration of which he complains. 

His next cavil is to the Protestant rendering (which he shed) of a fexw, Tit. iii. 5. If 
he wish to know, why " the ambiguous relative which, and the verb, to shed, are still retained," 
in the Protestant Bible, he will see a satisfactory cause assigned in the forementioned Section, 
He says, that " Doctor Ryan owns that the Catholic version is preferable." Granting that he 
made a similar admission respecting each of the other controverted texts, yet that would not 
affect the state of the question an iota ; as, after all, it is but the opinion of an individual. 
Indeed, Doctor Ryan himself candidly says as much; since, with an unaffected modesty highly 
creditable to him, and with great good sense, he desires that " * his errors here and elsewhere 
may not be imputed to the Protestant Churches ; but to the zeal, ignorance., or weakness of an 
individual, who writes without the authority or solicitation of any person whatsoever." 



ARTICLE VIIL 

The reader may satisfy himself by referring to Section VIII. No. 47 — 51, that /wmtmo. 
does not remotely imply any thing beside that thorough change of mind which produces the 
relinquishment of evil habits. Sorrow for sin, and purpose of amendment, it may embrace; 
but, certainly, it includes no external demonstration of that sorrow. Achilles, when he lamented 

* Anal. p. 33. 



APPENDIX. 



the fate of his friend Patroclus, could not be said to have felt pirctvoiot, ; and yet he expressed his 
grief by those outward signs so beautifully depicted by *Pope. The word originally used by 
our Saviour, (which the Evangelists have, by translating it ^trxvoia, properly referred to the 
mind,) was tTmJBu. This term, in the Syriac language, simply implies " turn ye." What a 
departure, therefore, is there from its primitive meaning in the use of one, which conveys the 
idea of mortification, or a punishment of body ? Doctor L. infers the accuracy of the Popish 
rendering of that word, 1st, "from some of the texts themselves. 2d. " From the ancient 
Greek Ecclesiastical Writers." 3dly, " From the discipline of the ancient church." And, 4thly, 
" from the Vulgate text." The merits of these points have been already discussed in so ample a 
manner, and the fate of Doctor L.'s inferences so clearly determined, that it would be a loss 
of time to say more here on the subject. 

Doctor L. partly overlooking Ward, shifts his ground to Gregory Martin. But a brief 
enquiry will suffice to ascertain the advantage he derives from this manoeuvre, and from the 
suggestion of this first and ablest of his predecessors. Ausonius, he observes, defines the sense 
of the word ^rxvotx in the well-known passage in his twelfth epigram. 

" Sum Dea, cui nomen nec Cicero ipse dedit. 

Sum Dea, quae facti, non factique exigo poenas 
Nempe ut paeniteat, sic METANCEA vocor." 

Although Doctor L. has not, like G. Martin, ventured so far as to style Ausonius a Chris- 
tian poet, yet he equally respects his authority, in the present case. tBeza is of opinion, that 
Ausonius was confined to the use of the word by the nature of epigrammatic metre, otherwise, 
that he would have adopted [abtcc^xux. This opinion could not have been founded in preju- 
dice ; as, since his time, the very ^Jesuits, who wrote the notes for the Delphin Edition of 
Ausonius's poems, have entertained the same opinion. Let the reader now contrast the authority 
of Lucian, an elegant Greek writer, with that of this obscure Latin poet, (for as they were 
both || Pagans that goes for nothing) and say by which he would 'be guided. Lucian, in one of 
his dialogues introduces Charon addressing the shades to the following effect : " If you should 

* Cast on the ground, with furious hands he spread 
The scorching ashes o'er his graceful head ; 
His purple garments, and his golden hairs, 
Those he deforms with dust, and these he tears : 
On the hard soil his groaning breast he threw, 
And roll'd and grovell'd, as to earth he grew. 

Lib. xviii. v. 27. et seq, 
f See Rev. Dr. Buchanan's late Sermon on the healing waters of Bethesda. p. lg. 
X Ausonius in illo suo epigrammate omnibus noto, ^x^^av potius quam fMTumui dicturus merit, si versus pentametri 
ratio permississet." Annot. in Matt. c. iii. v. 2. 

§ " Graacum est y.vta.wM, quod usurpavit Ausonius, cum latinum poenitentia, hexametri aut pentametri versus composi- 
tionem, jngredi non posset. Apud Ciceronem nusquam poenitentia legitur." Vid. Not. in Auson. Delph. Ed. 

|| " Ausonius was a professed Pagan." Gib. Decl. vol. v. p. 2. He thus speaks, himself being a Druid. " Stirpe 
Druidum satus, si faraa non fallit fidem." Auson. Varior. Amsteled. pp. 153. 169. 



APPENDIX. 153 

embark with these incumbrances, I fear lest you shoulil hereafter (psTotvoyrsri, surely it will 
not be said — do penance) repent it." So much for Doctor L.'s quotation from Ausonius. 

But if a Latin author be at all appealed to, why consult the profane pages of Ausonius in 
preference to the Christian writings of St. Austin? For this obvious reason, that that * Fa ther 
explains paznitentla as signifying a treturn to the Church, and not a satisfaction for sin ; and, 
therefore, he is overlooked. Moreover, why is not Lac tan ti us, another venerable father, one 
too a particular favourite with the Romish Church, brought forward by Doctor L. ? Evidently 
for the same reason. In treating of repentance, he says, % " tne Greeks apply a better and 
more forcible signification to psroivow than we can to resipiscentia ; for he repents, (resipiscit) 
and, as it were, recovers his mind from its delusion; who is grieved at his error." Erasmus 
speaks to the same effect; so that it was in the first instance wrong to adopt the Latin word 
poenitentia at all, and still more so to coin the term §pe?iance, which so emphatically designates 
one of the grossest errors of the Church of Rome. It is scarcely doing Bingham justice to 

* Graeci melius et significantius yt.na.wixt dicunt, quam nos possumus resipiscentiam dicere ; resipiscit et mentem ?"am 
quasi ab insania recipit, quern errati piget. Lactan. de vero cultu. Lib. vi. p. 24. 
f Tom. ii. p. 192, and Tom. iii. p. 383, et passim. 

-+ " Paenitens nihil aliud est nisi sibi iratus." And again, " poenitentia est renascentia animi." Probably it was with a 
reference to the latter passage in St. Austin's work, that the Rev. J. Quarry, in his Visitation Sermon, preached at Cork in 1808, 
before his Grace the Archbishop of Cashel, explained fctotimd as signifying a " spiritual new birth, or regeneration." With great 
deference, however, towards the opinion of so excellent a scholar and a divine, as Mr. Quarry unquestionably is, 
the real and only scriptural meaning of regeneration is confined in its application to the state consequent on baptism, and by no 
means imports that species of new-birth, which, according to his interpretation, marks instantaneous conversion. Doctor 
Buchanan, in his Sermon before alluded to, falls into the same error. Yet he varies his exposition by a shade of difference 
from that of Mr. Quarry ; as he considers the change to be progressive, and not sudden ; weak and imperceptible almost at 
first, but eventually effecting a rcgeneratio7i. 

§ In Section VIII. Numbers 4/ — 51, the reader will find a succinct account of the origin and growth of the doctrines 
relating to auricular confession and indulgences. The Penitential, or Registry of Pardons and Fines, which was first 
published, is there barely adverted to. Here, then, it cannot be thought unseasonable to exhibit an extract from a work, 
which should never be overlooked, when any question occurs in which Popery is concerned. Its title, which is so descriptive 
of its contents, runs thus : " The Book of Rates used in Ql\)Z CtlStOttt l^OUS'C Of t\)t COUlt ailD fl)£ 

<2Dl)UCCi) Of IROllir, By Anthony Egane, B. D. formerly confessor-general of Ireland." Egane's Tract was 
re-published in I8O9, by the author of Occasional Essays, (who is reported to be F. Maseres, Esq. Cursitor Baron of the 
Exchequer) and ha^ lately appeared in an abridged form in Doctor Hales's Chronology. The motives which induced those gen- 
tlemen to develope, and to make more generally known the horrible abuses and villanies practised under the mask of religion, 
are highly laudable. " I think," says the editor of the Essays, in his advertisement, " that it can never be unseasonable to expose 
a religion so destructive to the peace and happiness of society, so derogatory to the glory of God ; so contrary to the main end 
and purpose of Christianity; and that persecutes with such an unrelenting barbarity (where it can) those that have the courage 
and honesty to oppose its innovations." To this opinion Doctor H. subscribes, as must all, who have the interests of pure 
religion at heart. 

Egane relates that the book of rates is studiously withheld from even the ordinary priests, and that as being classed 
among the arcana imperii of the Papal Court, it was made known only to certain " Penitentiaries, to whom the Absolution of 
particular and heinous sins is committed," and -that of such persons there is one or two in every diocese in Ireland. 
Before these are vested with power, he says, they " must take an oath of secrecy not to reveal the mysteries of their Church," 
to either clergy or laity, or those " suspected to be of so acute parts, or of so much learning and honesty, as might make them 
scruple their authority." With respect to those sins commonly called reserved cases, " if a man acknowledge himself guilty 

X 



154 



APPENDIX. 



condense what lie says respecting the penance of the Christian Church in the first a^es. The 
nature of this Work will not, however, admit of any thing else. After giving an account of 

of any such to an ordinary Confessor, he can only tell him where the Pope's Banker resides, who will absolve him, so he bring 
with him the price of his sin." What Egane says, as to the competence of the inferior clergy to absolve ordinary sinners, 
while deep guilt must be reserved for a higher tribunal, is not only confirmed by Father O'Leary's testimony ; (See O'Leary's 
Caution, &c. Cork. 1/83) but also by Sedway, a colemporary of his own, and who, like him, unlocked the Pope's Cabinet, 
(this is the title of his book,) after he renounced the office of Peniieutiary Priest. 

The following are the most remarkable of th e decreed impositions. Those omitted are such as delicacy forbids to be; 
mentioned. 

DISPENSATIONS FOR THE CHANGING OF A VOW. 

1 .- A dispensation for such as have vowed chastity during life is given only by the Pope, or some extraordinary great 



Prelate; but it shall cost 16 6 

2. He that hath vowed to be a Monk, so that the vow be not solemn, may be dispensed with according to 

conscience for 15 4 1 

3 If a man makes a solemn vow of chastity he may be dispensed with, paying the Prelate. 15 40 

4. For prolonging the term of vows lo go to the Holy Sepulchre, or to St. Peter's at Rome, provided a lawful cause 

be a'vgned g 2 9 

5. If the dispensation be only two years, it will be but 4 1 

6. For changing the pilgrimage of the Sepulchre for another, you must pay 12 3 6 

7. Besides gratifying the Prelate, to change one vow for another, will cost 6 2 d 

DISPENSATION OF OATHS. 

8. The dispensation of an oath or contract being given, to the end that one may not he expelled from his employ- 
ments, will be had for 7 2 3 

9. But if the Bull contains the inhibitory clause, together with an Absolution from Infamy, it will cost 56 9 6 

10. And if many are comprehended in the same fact, each of them must pay . . . . „ 3 

1 1 . For the breach of an oath which cannot be observed without incurring everlasting damnation ; e. g. a dishonest 

row, or a wicked promise > . . . 3 2 O 

DISPENSATIONS OF CRIMES. 

12. He that being a soldier, (i. e. a crusader) for the Catholic cause, and neither kills ncr wounds any in war, nor 

causeth any to do it... » 36 9 

13. If any man shall strike a Clerk or Priest, he shall pay 6 2 .0 

14. If an Abbot or Prelate 12 3 6 

15. A simple absolution for a Simonist, is 36 9 

16. Priests or Friars who have carnally sinned with a Nun Id. 

17. An Absolution for one that keeps a W at bed and board, with dispensation to hold a benefice. Id. 

18. Absolution for a Nun who played the W and who is to be restored to the dignity of her order Id. 

19. Commutation of public to private penance varies according to the crime ; that for murder . . 7.. .. 18 4 6 

LICENSES FOR INDULGENCES, &c. 

20. If it be for a College (such as the intended one for the Irish Jesuits.) 60 15 3 

2f . A Monk who intends to bequeath his property to his relations and not to the clergy, must pay 12 3 6 

22. To exempt a Titular Bishop from going to Rome 24 fj O 

23. A licence for the son of a Monk that he may have power to make a will 34 6 

24. A licence for an Abbess and three or four Nuns, with as many Friars to visit their estates for a week or two. . . 24 6 

25. They rnay stay a longer time, provided they always go bini et lini ; i. e. in pairs, and give no bad example, and if 

they do not live (caste) chastely ; at least they are to live (caute) warily Id. 

C15. To eat white meat in lent, and other fasting days . . 10 6 

27. Not to be tied to fasting days 1 4 



" The Papists," says Mr. Egane, " will, do dcubt, disown it, and say that it is a mere fiction, and that such things are 



APPENDIX. 



155 



the caiiSes which led to the introduction of strict discipline into the Church, and the effects 
attending it, he comes to the fourth century. At this period, he observes, the most rigorous 
punishments, even such as an exposure to the inclemency of the weather, (inter hyemantes orare) 
severe fasting, &c. were inflicted in the exercise of public penance. With the Bishop was vested 
a discretionary power to moderate them, and even to shorten the term of their continuance. His 
application of this power conveys the true ancient notion of an indulgence. How this was after- 

not practised in their church ; but I am ready to prove, by my own knowledge and experience, all I here allege to be true.- 
Whoever will but examine, and seriously consider the particulars, will easily be convinced that none but themselves could be 
the authors of it." It requires but little penetration indeed, to discover this to be the case, and that nothing but the thirst of 
lucre ever instigated these " merchants of souls," as he calls them, to lay on these abominable impositions on their credulous 
followers. The indulgences spoken of by Sedway, in his Pope's Cabinet, relate to pilgrims who visit the principal churches, 
altars, &c. at Rome. Some of these obtained, for this proof of their piety, plenary Indulgences ; others, the remission of 
part of their sins ; while to others was imparted the privilege of releasing souls out of purgatory ! 

It must, however, be observed; that some of the most respectable Popish writers, as .Cardinal Cajetan and Durandus, 
admit, that neither the Scriptures nor the primitive Fathers of the Church, make mention of indulgences. The former 
says, " De ortu indulgemiarum si certitudo haberi posset, veritati indagandae opem ferret j verum nulla sacrae scripturae, nulla 
sacrorum doctorum Graecorum aut Latinorura authoritas scripta hanc ad nostram deduxit aatatem." Opusc. torn. 1. traet, 
1531. And the latter, " De indulgentiis pauca dici posstmt per cerfitudinem quia nec Scriptura de iis expresse loquitur ; 
sancti etiam ut Ambrosius. Hil. Aug. Hieron. minime loquuntur de iudulgentiis." 64. dist. 20. 9. 3. 

To establish the veracity of his publication, Mr. Egane has subjoined the form op absolution used by the Peni- 
tentiary, after the penitent has confessed his sins. 

ABSOLUTION OF GRACE. 

" The Almighty God have mercy on thee, and remitting all thy sins, lead thee to eternal life. Amen. 

The Almighty and merciful God, grant thee indulgence, absolution, and remission of all thy sins. Amen. 

Our Lord Jesus Christ absolve thee : and by Virtue of the Authority that I hold, I do absolve the ; First from 
all sorts of Excommunications, whether great or small : (If the Penitent be a Clerk, he must say; from all sorts of suspen- 
sions and Interdicts, if by chance he hath incurred any) Then I absolve thee from all thy Sins and Torments due to thee iu 
Purgatory for thy Sins and Transgressions ; and I receive thee into the Union and Participation of the Church ; and by 
Virtue of a special Authority to me committed, I restore thee into that Innocency in which thou hast been when thou wert 
baptized : And if thou die not at this Time, I reserve thee this Grace, to the Hour of thy Death, In the Name of the 
Father, &c. and by the Merits and Passion of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ , and the Merits of the ever blessed Virgin 
Mary, and of all the Saints and Virgins ; that whatsoever Good thou hast done, and whatsoever Injuries thou patiently has 
suffered, let them be unto thee a Remission of thy Sins, and an Augmentation to Grace, and a Praemium of Life everlast- 
ing. Amen. Peace be with you." 

He then adds ; N. B. " These Names of Missionaries and Penitentiaries are all one ; the Distinction only is, that 
those Penitentiaries do reside in the Court of Rome, and the Missionaries are those which are dispersed through the World, 
notwit lis landing they have the same Power and Authority to absolve, id est, a Casibus Reservatis : the Truth is, those do not 
directly accumulate, or gather these Sums, hut they are to enlighten the Penance and Pilgrimage of the Penitents for paying 
these fore mentioned Taxes to their several Deputies, appointed in all Places to that Purpose." 

The following is the terrific form of the greater excommunication as it stands in Boxhornius's History of the low 
countries. It is likewise published by Doctor Hales in the second volume of his elaborate Analysis of Chronology p, 1024. 

FORM OF EXCOMMUNICATION. 

" By the command of ^Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, of the blessed Mary, mother of our Lord. 
Josus Christ, of St. Michael, John the Baptist, and Peter and Paul, princes of Apostles, of St. Stephen and all the .martyrs', 

X c 2 



156 APPENDIX, 



wards abused has been already *she\vn, The bare mention of the terms contrition and attrition 
are sufficient to remind the reader how the primitive doctrine was still further corrupted. So that* 
on the whole, the pretended Sacrament of Penance, as it is now understood in the Popish Church, 
is not only a gross corruption of the Scripture doctrine of repentance, but a departure from the 
usage of the Church in the primitive ages. See Bingham's Antiq. Vol. ii. p. 233. 



JRTICLE IX, 



The Protestant translation of Psalm cxxxix. 17, *' How precious are thy thoughts unto 
me, O God ! and how great is the sum of them :" is condemned by Dr. L. as nonsense itself. He 
has attempted to prove it so by a tortuous explication ; and although he affectedly sneers at it as a 
fit subject of meditation for an " orthodox Churchman," there is nothing in it, taken as it stands, and 
without reference to the Hebrew, whence it is derived, which savours of the absurd or non- 
sensical. " iwn, says Parkhurst, " is a sum or total, or head of an account :" and >jn implies 
thoughts, cogitations. Yet Dr. L. has the modesty to set his knowledge of the Hebrew language 
in opposition to such high authority, and to assert, that these words in the Hebrew, originally 
meant, the latter, ' friends,' and the former, ' princedom.' He fortifies himself, to be sure, by the 

St. Sylvester and all the confessors. St. Aldegonde and all the Virgins, and all the other Saints and Saintesses whatsoever, 
both in heaven and upon earth. 

" We curse and cut off from Holy Mother Church, those who have (such or such a thing,) or know it, or advised it, 
or had a hand therein. Let them be cursed in their houses, their beds, their fields, their lands, and their ways, in towns 
and villages. Let them be cursed in woods, rivers, and churches ; cursed in their lawsuits, and in their quarrels ; cursed in 
their prayers, in speaking and in silence ; in eating, drinking, and sleeping ; in watching, walking, standing, running, 
resting, and riding, cursed in hearing, seeing, and tasting, cursed in all their actions. Let this curse strike their heads, their 
eyes, their whole body, from the crown of the head to the sole of the foot. 

" I adjure thee, Satan, and all thy agents, by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, to take no rest, neither in 
the day, nor in the night, till you have brought a temporal and eternal confusion upon them, by contriving the matter so, 
that they may be drowned or hanged, or devoured by wild beasts, or torn by vultures or eagles, or consumed by fire, or killed 
by their enemies. Make them odious to all living creatures. Let their children le fatherless, and their wives widows. Let 
nobody, for the time to come, help them, or take pity on their fatherless children. And as Lucifer was expelled 
from heaven, and Adam banished from Paradise, let them likewise be expelled and banished from this world, being deprived 
of their estates ; and let them be buried with the burial of an ass. Let them be partakers of the punishment of Korah, 
Dathan, and Aliram, of Judas and Pontius Pilate, and of all those, who say to the Lord their- God, get thee gone we will 
have no knowledge of thy paths." Afterwards he who pronounced these imprecations, put out two lighted candles, which 
he held in his hand, and added these dreadful words > " I adjure thee, Satan, and all thy agents, to extinguish the light of 
their eyes, as these can&'es are extinguished, unless they do penance, and make full satisfaction. AmeD, let it be so* 
Amen." 



* See Section VIII. No. 47— 51. 



APPENDIX. 



renderings these words obtain in the Greek, Latin, (the vulgate it is to be presumed) Syriac, 
Arabic, and Ethiopic,'* versions; and the Chaldaic Paraphrase. And, as if it were a matter before un- 
known, he says, that these versions were executed before the Reformation. Now waving all reference 
to the Eastern dialects quoted by him ; the veriest smatterer in the Hebrew language can shew, that the 
forementioned Hebrew words, mi and an had not originally an exclusive signification, and that, too, 
according to the opinion of some of the translators whom he quotes, e. g. In Dan. ii. 30, un occurs, and 
is rendered ha.\oyi<j^o<; by the Seventy, coghatio by Jerome ; (Pagninus and Montanus use the same 
word) and ( cogitation' by the Douay translators! Were it necessary, he could be proved in error 
in what he says respecting the original signification of the other word too. The very title 
(Beresith) of the book of Genesis should have made him cautious in hazarding such an opinion. 
Neither his friends, the Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic translators, nor even the Chaldaic paraphrast, 
bear him out in his assertion in this case; and yet these writers had not the misfortune of living 
since the Reformation. 



ARTICLE X. 

Dr. L. admits that St. Augustine interpreted the passage in Hebrews,*^ and that in Genesis* 
to which it refers, so as to imply, " that Jacob adored God leaning on his staff," and that " St. 
Jerome countenances this opinion by translating the Hebrew : adoravit Israel Deum conversus ad 
lectuli caput." This admission would of itself acquit the first English Translators of the charge 
brought against them by Ward of corrupting the text by additions, independently of what has been 
said for them in Section x. No. 57, where the word leaning is shewn to render the sentence more 
clear. As to the word Deum, that corresponding to it does not occur in the Hebrew, which proves, 
so far as the authority of St. Jerome goes, that they were justified in adding the word ' God' to 
their translation. Their successors, however, in l6iO, very properly omitted it both in Hebrews 
and Genesis, as not being warranted by the original. 

Next Dr. L. adduces four ancient Fathers, in opposition to Jerome and Augustine, as favouring 
(observe Reader, he does not say adoration, but) the exhibition of religious respect to creatures. 
And, what is singularly strange, he seems to set up their difference of opinion, as a justification of 
the error of his church ! ! But before he can derive any advantage from this circumstance, it is 

* Reeves, in his Collation of the Psalms, and Geddes, although a Romanist, in his Bible published ] 807, agree with the 
Protestant Version in the rendering of Psalm cxxxix. 17. Dathe reads " cogitationes" and " summa," and so does Berlin, the 
author of an highly-approved Version of the Psalms, which has lately been executed at Upsal. 

f wpoo-txvwfi/ gfft to etymon 71K §a€5a eiinS. c. xi. v. 21. 

X Holmes on the Septuagint version etti to axpoc &c. of Gen. c. xlvii. v. 31, observes, " Lat, Codd. nonnulliy 
super caput ; alii in cacumine ; alii super cacumen. Teste Augustino in extremitatem in textu, in summitatem in marg. 
Vid. Holmes's Lxx. 



\5B 



APPENDIX. 



necessary he should shew that w-potncui/sw, a verb equally used by *all, is exclusively confined in its 
signification to religious worship. This he knows he cannot do, as the posture indicated by it 
whether the person bent himself down, or prostrated himself, was one of \ civil reverence or 
homage, as well as of religious worship. As to sin, it is true, he does not, like Ward, venture to 
assert, that that wretched little particle has no signification at all, and only belongs to the phrase ; 
yet he considers it nearly in the same light ; as in the reading he prefers, it is rendered to. But as 
its meaning is to be determined by the corresponding Hebrew word (ty) " gnal," it must necessarily 
mean upon, and, therefore, can neither be understood as an expletive, nor as signifying to, or 
towards. Dr. L. says, that " the Reformers had rejected that respect, which Catholics allow on 
religious motives to be sometimes paid to creatures." " Thus," continues he, " the same phrase 
adopted different meanings, at the will of the translator : and the same preposition on one occasion 
pointed out the object of worship, at another excluded it. e g. *Thou shalt not bow down thyself 
( b ) to them ; and, \worship (b) at his footstool" The * will ' of the translator evidently has not 
been the guide in the present instance, but the tendency or sense of the passage ; and this was to 
be collected from the context in general. A solemn command delivered by a direct communication 
from God, forbids worship to be paid to any created being. Then supposing the Psalmist, in a 
rapturous strain of devotion, to say, |" adore ye his footstool ;" is that to nullify the command ? 
Unquestionably not. Thus is this apparent contradiction reconciled. Now, as Doctor L. has 
appealed to the Hebrew, it is but fair to ask him, that as the Douay Divines have suppressed the 
particle b entirely in both the above texts, when they thus render them ; " thou shalt not adore 

* First Theophviact, T7 ? o 

et,T», tbt' sr<r, £WE£sI(76ei;1») ^xS^co hoc to ye^a.;. Ttnei; h etti to ccxqit, tut E7r£^£icr6£i;% gafictu ha. to •/££(*;. T'vs? o*e ewj to ax§o» T»){ 

ga/SoB TB I«CT£p, <px<?i, itgouiyitr,^, tmpotitw to Tr,? (Sacri^Eia; axml^ov o\cs m pa^a it ^uxwrfy^tn^ai /aeMov. In cap. xi. ad. Heb. 

2. Theodoret. \jl-atx-ati] iv.a§i<j§r, @ax.7r,qix h x.zxjpyii/.ivos e7TJ5-"/j£i£eto. [tb (jlev axf>8 TauT'/); ettei >.ij^(jwEi/o; t»j o;|<«. ettixeijiaevov o£ Te 
ir^oa-wrtof e%&.'\/. rio-Sat; roisvv tit 'airy, xat ~rt t>j$ T«(p>:? iirxyy&ta] xpuixvmcnt nnxhuas % "iriv <z?w. In. Gen. Interrog. 109- 
Dr. L. omits the text between the brackets. 

3. The Homily of Athanasius, to which Doctor L. refers, is pronounced spurious by the Benedictine Monks, who 
edited the volume in which it occurs ! ! In a prefatory note they thus admonish the reader. " Hanc publicam fecit Holste-* 
nius, Athanasio alj udicandam putavit, nec injur id : est enim ineptissimi hominis fcetus, ut primo aspeclu aestimabit eruditus 
lector, &c." Is it the part of a man actuated by the love of truth, as Doctor L. professes to be, to act thus ? 

4. Chrysostom. [EteiSe yag ejAstAtv am tb ip^aiy. aviraaQat i3aio-i?VEi'; ETE^og, ha tsto <p-/-,o"t, y.a» wfocrixwypii/ etti to axpov rvif gaffia 
avzn : tbt' es"»,] y-ai y-^vi ut, rjSti 9rpo<7Ev.i;ni<7£ lutnty, tvi nann^ ts Xau w^oa-y.vvr,c-iv $r,\vt tr,i laopttriv avtu. [tsto e|e£>j y.it n^l, ote «ut&i 
oi ah^pt irg><7iKVir)<Txii.~] Horn. xxvi. in ep. ad. Heb. 

The clauses (No. 4 .) between the brackets, which Dr. I,, has suppressed, are most material to be known. For in the for- 
mer, it is intimated that a King, that is, that a civil Governor would arise from Ephraim ; and Jacob, as it were, presignifying 
the respect which would be paid to this future Monarch, made his obeisance to Joseph. From the latter it appears, that 
the example, thus set by their aged father, was followed by his other sons. It is truly astonishing, that such men as Doctor 
L., Doctor Milner, &:c. having all this before their eyes, can be so infatuated as to persevere in advocating the Dulia, or the 
adoration of creatures, a practice so intimately connected with rank idolatry. 

f Vid. Wetstein on Matt. c. ii. v. 2. h%>o-v.vkui occurs upwards of forty times in the N. T. and is applied to express 
civil reverence in more than one- third of that number. 

j Exod. c. xx. v. 5. h Paal. xcix. v. 3. 



APPENDIX. 159 

them :" and, " worship ye his footstool :" how happens it that they give it significance in two texts 
in ^Genesis, and one in ^Numbers? Shall it be here observed of them, as he has remarked 
respecting the Reformers in the former case ; it is to be feared, lest " the prejudices of the trans- 
lators prevailed over their respect for the original ?" Certainly not ; as that would be only an idle 
imitation of Doctor L. whose chief object, in his strictures on the Analysis, seems rather to be, to 
prove his adversary wrong, than himself right. 



ARTICLE XL 

In Section xr. Numbers 6 1. 62. the reader will meet with an ample refutation of Doctor 
L.'s defence of image worship. When such an acute linguist, and so able a controvertist, as Doctor 
L. undoubtedly is, feels his inability to supply any new matter, and is obliged to reproduce the stale, 
worn-out arguments of Gregory Martin, which have, for upwards of two centuries, lain beneath a 
mass of confutation ; it is evident that the cause which he attempts to support is in a declining 
state. " No less/' says Doctor L., " than thirteen different words in the Hebrew, and nine in the 
Greek Scriptures, were invariably rendered image in the English Version : so wonderfully compre- 
hensive is the meaning of that single word in orthodox language." What a discovery ! But it so 
happens, that its sole merit consists in ascertaining that the Hebrew and Greek terms, which 
Martin enumerates in his work, equal those numbers. To the superior richness of the Hebrew 
language it is to be attributed, that it can express in so many different forms, what the English 
language can only express in two. " Wonderfully comprehensive," therefore, as the term image 
is, it arises from no design in the Protestant Translators, as Doctor L. insinuates, but from the 
nature of the language to which it belongs ; nor could it be remedied, except by coining terms no 
less ridiculous than azymes, parascue, &c. which abound in the Rhemish Testament. Moreover, 
the disproportion between the number of terms found in those Eastern tongues, and the only two 
which the English affords, will lessen surprise, when it is considered, that there is a diminution of 
terms, a kind of descending series, in each language, of more recent origin. For as the Greek is 
less copious than the Hebrew, so is the Latin than the Greek, and the English than the Latin. 
So that, in fact, the sound of image in the ears of a modern advocate for image worship, is not 
-more annoying, than it was to Martin, who compared its repetition in the English Bible to " the 
notes of the cuckoo bird." 

It has been abundantly proved in an another place, that it is immaterial whether ' graven image,' 
or ' graven thing,' be the version of Pesel in the second Commandment. Now Doctor L., 
instead of shewing that this is preferable to that reading, blinks the question, and cavils at an 



* c. viii. v. 2. b is rendered at, and in c. xxiv. v. 55. to, as % ^nb. 
t C. xi. v. 10. is rendered at. Vid. Douay Trans], in l«c. 



160 



APPENDIX. 



illogical conclusion, drawn by the Author of the Analysis. He observes, it is true, that Protestants 
should have preferred idol to image in their translation : but surely if religious reverence be paid to 
an image, it becomes an idol, and where, then, is the difference ? But image, he says, is also a 
false rendering, " as it restrains the prohibition to images," whereas graven thing includes " the 
columns of stone, which were the objects of worship to many of the ancient nations." Could a 
more silly reason be assigned ? It certainly does not at all apply in the present instance ; as the 
divine command, when it was delivered, did not extend to any other than the Jewish nation. 



ARTICLE XII. 

It is vain to look for any thing like novelty in this Section of Dr. L.'s strictures, any more than in 
those which have preceded, since as in those, he but repeats the trite and common-place remarks of his 
predecessors, Martin and Ward. " The point to be determined," says he, " is, whether the Hebrew 
word denote the grave, as it is rendered in the Protestant Version, or the state of the soul after 
death, as it was understood by the Catholic Translators." If the reader will only refer to Section 
xii. Number 74, et seq. he will find it satisfactorily proved, that the Protestant Translators were 
fully justified in the meaning they attached to that term, inasmuch as it was the only one it would 
bear, wherever it occurred ; and also, that it is as proper for grave as -up. Will Doctor L. say, that 
if keber does not signify the c grave,' is it a proof that sheol does not signify the same? This, it 
is presumed, he will scarcely attempt. Indeed, if he only consult the Section and Numbers 
already pointed out, he will discover strong reasons for admitting, that his research has been rather 
of a limited nature, when he says, he cannot " find any proof that ' sheol ' is ever employed in that 
sense, (viz. grave) in the Scriptures ;" and of his being perfectly in error, when he asserts, that it 
cannot bear the meaning ascribed to it by the Protestant Translators, in Genesis xxxvii. 35. Whe- 
ther the Author of the Analysis be or be not conversant with the Samaritan Version of the 
Scriptures is entirely irrelevant to the disputed point. He has not rested on that single evidence, as 
*he has appealed to the Arabic Version, in which it is rendered pulvis, and to those unexceptionable 
authorities, Walton and Robertson. 

Doctor L. says, that the author of the Analysis has, misrepresented Ward by stating, that he 
" introduced the text from Heb. v. 7, as a proof of the existence of purgatory." So far from any 
thing of the kind being stated in the Analysis, it is not so much as hinted at ! And although 
it be there passed over unnoticed, Dr. L. may have reason to conclude, that his assumption of the 
Protestant rendering (viz. in that he feared) being indefensible, is groundless, on perusing No. 85 
of this work. 



* Anal. p. 28. 



APPENDIX. 



161 



ARTICLE XIII. 

" The Protestant Translators/' says Doctor L., " were violent champions in favour of Justi- 
fication by Faith only." Cranmer, the day-star of the Reformation in England, himself too a 
translator, gave the same English for Smm, and its derivations in his Bible, with that which it obtained 
in Mathews's and the Great Bible. No variation occurs in any of the succeeding versions, even in 
that of 101 1. Now as *Cranmer concludes, that man's justification was to be ascribed only to the 
merits of Christ ; and that those who are justified, must have charity as well as faith ; but that neither of 
these is the meritorious cause of justification ; it is a gross libel to charge the Protestant Translators 
with maintaining the doctrine of justification ' by faith only.'' The fact is, that Doctor L., like 
Ward, Martin, &c. seeing that the Reformers, by attaching merit neither to faith, nor to works, 
had shaken one of the chief pillars, which supported the Popish Church, attributes to them, and, 
consequently, to the Church of England, a doctrine which is disclaimed by both. The Church of 
Rome not only ascribes to works a power of satisfying God for sin, but a virtue to deserve grace in 
this life, and bliss in that to come. As this unscriptural tenet is grounded on a decree of the Council 
of Trent, which sets forth, that " if any one shall say that the good works of a justified man do 
not truly deserve eternal life; let him be accursed:" the Reformers could not have marked their 
reprobation of it in too strong language, particularly as they themselves proceeded with prudent 
circumspection, in laying it down, that Faith and Works are equipollent conditions of salvation. 
After observing that the Translators had two sets of English words expressive of Smn and its 
derivations, he says, " when they were united with the word faith, they were rendered by just, 
justice, justification ; but if to reward, or the practice of good works, by righteous, righteousness." 
That the English Translators observed no such distinction, but applied either indifferently, may, 
beside tthose mentioned in Section XIII. No. 89, be proved from other texts, Jviz. " not the 
hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.''' " ||A seal of 
the righteousness of the faith." § " For the promise was through the righteousness of faith" 
H " even the righteousness which is of faith. In not one of those texts, it may be seen, is justice 
coupled with faith, or righteousness with works. As, therefore, an indiscriminate use of those 
terms might be pointed out in several other places, the fairness of the Protestant Translators, 
is as fully established, as the futility of Doctor L.'s remarks. 



ARTICLE XIV. 

Doctor L. censures the Author of the Analysis for quoting " from the amended version" of 
the Bible, three of the texts, on which the Popish Church grounds the doctrine of merit and 

* See Burnet's Exposition of the xxxix Articles. f Rom. c. i. v. 17. and c. iii. v. 22. 

* Rom. c. ii. v. 13. || Ibid. c. iv. v. 1 1. § Ibid. c. iv. v. 13. «][ Ibid. c. ix, v. 3tt 

Y 



APPENDIX. 



meritorious works; " while Ward complains of the original translation." Ward's cavils on this' 
head have been completely set at rest in Section XIV. No. 92, et seq. And although he lays 
such stress on the early English version of Aoy»£<w««, which occurs in the *first of those three 
texts, yet it is not on it the agitated point rests. As to the fother two, notwithstanding what 
Doctor L. asserts, Ward's comments are as much directed against the late as the ancient versions, 
since they are nearly the same. So that if the later readings of those texts have been exclusively 
quoted by the Author of the Analysis, he has not in consequence practised any artifice, nor 
betrayed any diffidence in the goodness of his cause. 

" The Greek," says Doctor L. " is »Wa<r«m, (Coloss. i. 12.) and as the Protestant 
Translators have rendered Ixavo? worthy, in Matt. iii. 2. and viii. 8, I see Hot why they should 
here have rendered it meet, were it not to avoid the Catholic doctrine of merit." This is but an 
idle repetition of another of Gregory Martin's objections. However, Doctor L. will sec it 
fully explained in No. 94, why the derivative verb naturally partakes of the most frequent 
acceptation of its root, and that even were the Rhemish Version of lx«.m<r<xvTi the best, what 
he calls the Catholic (i. e. the Popish) doctrine, would not be in the least promoted. 

There is something singular, observes Doctor L. in the fate of the Hebrew word ipv, for if 
in Psal. cxix. 112, " the Catholic Translator has rendered it for reward, he has in the 33d verse 
of the same psalm rendered it always.; while the Protestant Translator, if in this passage he has 
rendered it unto the end, in Psal. xix. 12, he has rendered it reward" He might have added too 
the passages Psal. xl. 16. and lxx. 4, where the same Hebrew term is rendered reward by the 
Protestant Translators. It will, however, appear on an attentive consideration of those passages 
that they did not mean by reward, either desert or merit; but that in adopting that term, they 
simply designed to express, the end, event, or consequence : and that although it were rendered 
reward in Psal. cxix. 1 12, agreeably to the Popish version, it would not warrant the Jexposition 
given that text by the Douay Divines ; as reward there may imply, that it is vouchsafed accord- 
ing to promise by grace, and not by desert. 



ARTICLE XV. , 

Because the later readings of the texts John i. 12; Ephesians iii. 12; and 2 Cor. vi. 1; 
corresponding with the numbers 97. 99- and 100. in Section XV. vary from the earlier ones; 
it is, in Doctor L.'s mind, " a sufficient proof that in the original Protestant Version, they 
were rendered corruptly." This is strange enough, as if it necessarily followed, that because two 
translations differed from each other, one must be wrong; and as if there did not exist degrees 



* Rom. c. viii. v. 18. t He '°- c - x - v - 2 9- c - »• v - 9- 

$ Viz, " A most evident place that the keeping God's commandments merit reward." Douay Bib. vol. ii. p. 22/. 



APPENDIX. 



lb"3 



of excellence in translations, so that that which was inferior might not convey the spirit of the 
original; although in a less clear and concise manner, nearly as well as that which possessed 
those advantages. An inspection into the Synopsis for the above texts and numbers, will satisfy 
the reader that this is the case with respect to the early and late English Versions, e. g. s£a<ri* 
not only implies power, but also dignity, prerogative. (See remarks on 970 In number 99, the 
first English Version is rather a paraphrase, as appears from the addition of the words, ' which 
is;' still, however, retaining the full import of the original. And in number ](JO, we together 
are ' God's labourers,' differs in a very trifling degree, from ' as workers together with him.' 
Should it be inferred from the former rendering, that man became a mere passive agent, under 
the irresistible control of the Holy Spirit, it would be but a perversion of the sentiments of the 
majority of those engaged in making the early versions, on that particular point. The rendering 
4 we together are God's labourers', becomes obscure from ' together' not being united to 
4 labourers,' so as to express the meaning of a-w^ynvTsg. . 

On the remaining texts, belonging to Section XV. (see Nos. 98. 101, 102, 103,) it would 
be superfluous to offer a single additional observation ; for, notwithstanding that Doctor L. 
professes it to be " easy to vindicate Ward's remarks on them," it appears the substance of what 
he says is derived from the Errata, which has, in its proper place, been already noticed. 



ARTICLE XVL 

Doctor L. comments with great severity on the Author of the Analysis, for having passed 
over Ward's arguments, as if he had never seen them ; and yet he himself commits the very 
fault immediately after for which he condemns him. He does even worse, he descends to perso- 
nality ; a mode of proceeding unwarranted in legitimate criticism, and every way unworthy a 
gentleman of Doctor L.'s scholarship. 

The first passage, (Rom. v. 18,) from which Ward derives the doctrine of c inherent justice,' 
says Doctor L. " is one of considerable obscurity." He then praises the " scrupulous fidelity" 
of the Rhemish Translators; by which he admits, what is rire case, the obscurity of their trans- 
lation. But this is not all. " If," continues he, " Ward complains of these additions, (such as 
were made by the Protestant Translators) it is probable, that his complaint was not unfounded ; 
since, in their corrected editions, other additions were substituted, taken from the 16th 
verse. " Here, too," he says, " the alteration I think judicious." The matter, then, stands thus. 
Having in the outset disclaimed all concern about the merits or demerits of the opinion respect- 
ing imputative justice, he consequently betrays a diffidence in the soundness of Ward's obser- 
vations ; for whence this hesitation to decide, if he considered the strictures which are contained 
in the Errata, on the point, justifiable ? Next comes his implied admission of the obscurity of 
the Rhemish Version, or rather, his direct admission of the obscurity of the original; a proof 

y 2 , 



APPENDIX. 



positive that he does not consider the Popish doctrine made out by that passage. Thirdly, the 
weakness of the grounds on which he sustains the justice of Ward's ' complaint,' being no 
other than that of probability. And fourthly, his indirect approval of the la-st Protestant 
Version ; white Ward equally condemns both first and last. In all these particulars, he betrays 
a distrust in the goodness of his cause. So that altogether, his critique is rather against, than 
favourable to Ward ; while the assertion made by the author of the Analysis, that * " the Popish 
Translation of the passage does not recommend, nor the Protestant one condemn, justice," 
appears, on Doctor L.'s own principle, to be the result of an intimate knowledge of the subject, 
and not to be contradicted except at the expence of truth. (See No. 104.) 

The reader must surely be surprised, when he is told, that Doctor L. a writer of unques- 
tionable erudition, has not drawn on his own stock of learning for a single remark, but is 
indebted, in every article of his Review, to the obsolete cavils of Martin or Ward. Thus 
commenting on Rom. iv. o, like them, he says, " Beza, the master of our Translators, reads pro 
justitia, i. e. vice et /oco justitire." If Doctor L. will but consult Beza's edition of the New Tes- 
tament of 1d9>S which may be pronounced genuine as being published under his own eye, he 
will discover tf^justjtiam occurring three times in the tfourth chapter of Romans, and once in 
% James, as the translation of n$ Sntxioww ! " Now, I appeal," continues the Doctor, " to 
any man acquainted with the Greek and Hebrew languages, whether such can be the meaning 
either of St. Paul t\oyi<rfa us Smxioo-ww, or of the writer of Genesis whom the Apostle quotes, 
npnsf -h row." This, the reader will perceive, on adverting to number 105 of this work, to be 
nothing but a repetition of what is quoted there from Ward ; so that this succinct Review, as it 
has been affectedly called, is only a meagre abstract of the Errata, as that work has been 
-^before stated to be of Martin's prior work. In answer to the appeal, however, it is only neces- 
sary to remark, that there is no preposition expressing for or instead of, in that passage of 
Genesis : and as to the Greek, common sense points out the necessity of understanding as as 
for, or as. || " God," says the Bishop of Lincoln, " foreseeing that the faith of Abraham was of 
that true and lively nature, which would produce obedience whenever an opportunity offered, 
imputed it to him for righteousness; that is, as another able commentator observes, H" in judg- 
ing Abraham, God will place on one side of the account his duties, and on the other his perfor- 
mances. And on the side of his performances he will place his faith, and by mere favour will 
value it as equal to a complete performance of his duties, and reward him, as if he were ' a righ- 
teous person." Thus are the early and late versions of the Protestant Bible, in this particular 
text, established by those authorities, in competition with whom the great Ward, nay even 
Doctor L. himself, sinks into nothingness. 

His next animadversion is pointed at the " false translation of 2 Cor. v. -21, corrected in 
the more modern Bibles." Here," in his anxiety to attach censure to the author of the Analysis, 
for his silence respecting the early English Versions of the Bible, he admits, what Ward 



* Anal. p. 36. f Viz. in the 3d, 5th, and 9th verses. % C. ii. v. 23. $ See Preface. 

■)) Refutation of Calvinism, c. iii. p. 122. % Macknight on Romans, vol. i p. 261. 



APPENDIX. 165 

certainly does not warrant him in saying, and what, no doubt, will call down on him the censure 
of his Ordinary; that Suunoruvn is fitly rendered by ' righteousness.' Ward equally condemns 
both versions, late as well as ancient; so that even an allusion to these in such a compendious 
work as the Analysis, could not reasonably be expected. The ancient English Version of that 
text, and at the time too when Gregory Martin objected to it, was admitted to be " a dissolute" 
rendering. But has the light of the Gospel been lastingly obscured by so temporary and slight 
an imperfection; has a single point of doctrine, faith, or morals, depended on it ; or has Popery 
o-ained the most inconsiderable advantage by the admission then and now made? Doctor L. 
will scarcely venture to answer in the affirmative; nor, indeed, will Doctor Coppinger honestly 
say so, notwithstanding that he affects to exult in the * " learned, critique, and liberal concessions, 
of the Rev. Doctor Ryan, upon the subject of corrected errors." 

What has been offered in Numbers 107, 108, 109, in answer to Ward's cavils, applies 
equally to those made by Doctor L. on the texts, Eph. i. 6 ; Rom. iv. 6 ; and Dan. vi. 22 ; as they 
do not vary in the smallest degree from each other. 



ARTICLE XVII. 

The objections set up by Doctor L. against the Protestant Version of nXtifofopec, Rom. x. 22, 
so far as they are borrowed from Ward, have been already refuted in No. 110. It only remains, 
then, to examine the efficiency of the aid he has derived from Gregory Martin ; since to one or 
other of those authors, he is solely indebted for the subject matter of his criticism. Like 
Martin, he first adduces the authority of ^Theodorer, to shew that ^x^oipo^cc, mrsw? means a 
full and perfect faith ; a faith that believes without doubting whatever God revealed; and next 
that of +Theophylact, as determining it to be a perfect and indubitable (ahrtxxTox) faith. It is 
admitted, that both speak against {Si^ovoix rys ^vyvii) hesitation of mind, and against a doubting 
or wavering faith ; but against c assurance,' ' full assurance,' &c. of faith, not a word. Thus the 
authority, in the particular in which he desires to apply it, is inadmissible. 

With the misrepresentation of the text in question " by ancient or modern fanatics," the 
Church of England is no way concerned. And, notwithstanding that this partial abuse may 
have arisen from the unrestrained privilege, vouchsafed at the time of the Reformation of inter- 

* See Letter to the Dublin Society. 2d Ed. p. 44. 
f " Let us approach with sincere affection, believing that these things are so, and banishing all hesitancy from our 
minds, for this he called (ir?\y%o(po%iai>) certainty." Theodor. in Epis.ad Heb. c. x. v. 22. 

t " He instructs us by what means we may not be cast down in our minds, if we possess a w?wpopogia» of faith, that iSj 
he says, " a faith finished, and (tsAewt a-vnv) most perfect." The foregoing sentence Doctor L. for very obvious reasons over- 
looks; while he adduces one not at all to the purpose : viz. " therefore we have need of a perfect and undouhting faith." 
Theophyl. Commen. in Heb. e x. v. 22. 



1G6 



APPENDIX. 



preting the Scriptures, each in his own way, that can be no argument against its use ; as the 
very best gifts of God may, in their application, be perverted from the ends, which they were 
designed to answer. 

Respecting the Protestant Version of the text, Luke xviii. 42, " thy faith hath saved thee," 
Doctor L. says, that " that rendering is acknowledged to be false;" and yet in the very next 
sentence he asks, " why it .yas first inserted in the original version, and why it is still preserved 
in the corrected edition?" What is this but saying yes and no in the same breath ? The other 
texts where c-so-wjce occurs, are treated of in No. 114. 



ARTICLE XVIII. 

On the subject of Apostolical Traditions, Doctor L. says, he is " content to refer the reader 
to the Ekrata, (p. 83,) where he will see what reasons Ward had for censuring the Protestant 
Translators." That being the case, it will be only necessary for the reader to refer to the 
corresponding Section in this work, for a complete refutation of Ward's objections. He will there 
find that the cause of the early Protestant Translators is not by any means indefensible, notwith- 
standing that he insinuates as much, because their labours have been unnoticed in the Analysis. 



ARTICLE XIX. 

In every division of his Review, Doctor L. affects to triumph over the author of the 
Analysis, from his having made no mention of the early English Versions of the Bible; and 
occasionally too, he intersperses his observations^with some sallies of wit. " Ward," he says, 
fe condemned the original Protestant rendering of Eph. v. 32. viz. ' this is a great secret:' a 
rendering so very faulty that DoctorRyan was ashamed to notice it, and therefore endeavoured, 
by calumniating his adversary, to keep it a great secret / T Playfulness like this is calculated to 
amuse, and it is not improbable, that it has been exercised here with that intent. But the 
serious reader,who prefers argument, will not, on an occasion like the present, permit his attention 
to be called off by such trifling. He will see it to be rather a subterfuge of art, designed to 
conceal the imperfections of a weak cause, than a well-timed application of an humorous 
conceit. The fact is, Doctor L. had no solid objection to make, and therefore he impeached the 
motives of his adversary for not mentioning in his work the early Protestant Versions. But 
that he does so wrongfully, may be collected from what is said in No. 122. The motives of the 
first Translators themselves have been already vindicated; and it is only necessary to add, that 



APPENDIX. 



167 



In rendering pur/j^ov secret, they conceived, and justly too, that they expressed it by one of 
equivalent import; inasmuch as the Greek term, abstractedly taken, conveys no idea of holiness, 
and only receives such an acceptation from the matter annexed to it. In order, therefore, 
that the word sacrament might be exclusively appropriated to what signified the seals of 
God's promises, such as baptism and the Lord's supper, they restricted it in its use; while they 
adopted the word 1 secret,' or (as in the margin of the first English Bibles) ' mystery,' where 
they had to express any thing different. 

It is proper, too, to observe, that the Rhemish Annotators feeling the weak support which 
their * ' Sacrament of Matrimony,' derives from sacramentum the Vulgate reading, take their 
stand on the genera! signification of the term in those passages where the word distinctly implies 
' mystery.' In this, however, they but follow Peter Lombard who first broached that doctrine 
in the Xllth century. With respect to Doctor L. himself, he may with justice be said to be 
nothing more than a mere repeater of what Ward says, his very echo in abuse, ringing the 
changes from one end of his succinct Review to the other, on the words, ' Ward is right,' 
' Doctor Ryan is wrong;' without establishing the truth of either assertion. 



ARTICLE XX. 

In Doctor L.'s concluding paragraph, something too remarkable occurs, in his answers to, 
and observations on, the queries put forth in the Analysis,, not to command attention. 

" Doctor Ryan," says he, " asks how the Vulgate can be an infallible standard for other 
translations. I answer, that the Vulgate is a version deservedly of high authority, but I never 
yet met with a Catholic, who considered it as infallible." Let the reader now compare the 
foregoing answer, with the observation which he subjoins to his answer to Doctor Ryan's second 
query, and judge whether they do not convey a downright contradiction. 

Q. " Did the Protestant Churches ever pretend to be infallible in their translations or 
otherwise?" Ans. " I know not whether they did or not," Then he observes; " but this I 
know, they ought to have done so. Whence can a Protestant, ignorant of the original lanouaoes 
derive the knowledge of the Christian faith, but from the translation of the Bible? If, then 
that translation hefallibk, how can he have any security that his faith be true? Built on an 
unsafe foundation it can never acquire stability. The translation of the Bible must be infallible, 
or the Protestant in question must always live in uncertainty." If Doctor L. be serious, and 
do not intend to deceive, does he not state that the spiritual state of all the Papists who now 

* « It has no visible sign ordained of God, nor any promise of inward grace, which are essential to a Sacrament. And, 
St. Paul in calling the marriage of Christ and his Church Mvngw,; by that expression means, that Christ is not literally 
married to his Church, but onl; metaphorically, or mystically r .See Bishop of Lincoln's Exp. Article xxv. p. 428. 



168 



* 

APPENDIX. 



exist, and who have lived for the last twelve centuries, must be deplorable in the extreme, unless 
they possessed a confidence that their faith flowed from an unerring version of the Scriptures. 
It would, it is insisted on, require the subtlety of Loyola himself to reconcile this with the 
above answer ; " that he never met a Catholic, who considered the Vulgate infallible." More- 
over, this answer is still less consistent with the language of the Popish Church, which declares 
her to be * " infallible in her doctrinal decisions and canons, in points of faith and morals." And 
that t " Catholics are also obliged in like manner to submit to similar decrees and decisions of 
the Pope, when expressly or tacitly assented to by the majority of Bishops representing and 
governing the church dispersed." Now, Doctor L. admits, that the Scriptures are the very basis 
of faith and morals, and if so, he must believe that that version of them which his Church admits 
as a rule by which it is to be guided, must be infallible ; for, according to his own argument, 
if the ground- work be insecure, the superstructure cannot possess stability. And as the last 
authorised edition of the Vulgate has for two centuries been received by the majority of the 
governing part of the Church without opposition, it follows, that Clemens, in his decision 
respecting that edition, was infallible, and therefore that it must have been, and is, considered as 
infallible, by all true members of the Popish Church, contrary to what Doctor L. so confidently 
declares in the answer, which he gives to the first query. 



* Vid. Pastokal Letter, by the R. R. Doctor Troy, 1/93. f Ibid. See also Veronius's Rule of Faith, cap. I. 



ERRATA. 

Pace. Line. 

17, 22, for 1EREA, read ' iepea.' 

19, 27, for sinnscarnibh, read ' sinnseamibh.' 

2SJ, for EoQidsir Gusiilkilge, read ' Focaloir Gaoidhilge.' 

25, 1, for and, read ' Thus.' 

32, 19, for the latter, read ' either.' 

61, 20, for Origin, read ' Origen.' 

64> 27, for by him, read ' by Dr. Milner.' 

73, " 20, First Book of Samuel enumerated among the Apocrypha. 

145, 29, for it it, read ' it is.' 



G. Sidney, Printer, 
Northumberland-street, Strand. 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Dnve 
Cranberry Township. PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




014 165 099 3 9 



